 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > re: Modes distinction "fides qua" vs "fides quae" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 10:35 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Corey said...
JEE said...
I have personally known several Buddhists who were absolutely firm in their conviction that their religion was truth, whether they believed in God or not; not all Buddhists believe in a deity, though all believe in karma, dharma, chanting to effect a change, and so forth.
And how did you interact with them? Did they encounter Christ through you? The Christians I know converted from Buddhist/Shinto did it by very carefully, and over time, considering the claims Jesus made. In a country whose identity is tied to Buddhism and Shinto and with Mormons, JWs, Sokka Gakkai and other competing claims, they need something more than a soup kitchen encounter with Jesus. (Ramen-ya encounter)
 Post Edited (Laika) : 1/27/2005 9:40:32 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/27/2005 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey said...JEE said...
<FONT style="COLOR: #000099">I have personally known several Buddhists who were absolutely firm in their conviction that their religion was truth, whether they believed in God or not; not all Buddhists believe in a deity, though all believe in karma, dharma, chanting to effect a change, and so forth.
</FONT> And how did you interact with them? Did they encounter Christ through you?
I guess that would depend on their perspective of the experience. I did get some compliments from them as to how I was one of the nicest Christians they'd ever met. 
(By the way, I seem to be sensing some hostility towards me by you, Corey; is it just me?)
Anyway, I tried to interact with them by being a friend to them, and when the opportunity seemed to present itself, brought up the teachings of Christ in the context of a discussion of their Buddhist beliefs, and went from there in the personal aspects of both of our faiths, etc. I can't say whether any of them ever converted (I've moved to another part of the country since then and have lost contact), but we did have some very interesting discussions about our faiths.
I'm definitely not an expert in the area of reaching Buddhists for Christ; I'm only relating my experience in the past with them as it relates to this discussion. I only mentioned this to illustrate the point that virtually every person in every religion claims their faith "works" (is proven true by their experience).
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/27/2005 9:43:15 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/27/2005 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
... Prove to them that it's your God they've encountered, not theirs.
Exactly how would you prove to them what they encountered?
I content if they're still asking for some sort of syllogism, they probably didn't encounter God in the first place. If they experienced God, it would be nearly impossible to doubt it.
Only after they've begun wrestling with their encounter with God (fides qua) would syllogisms and the like be helpful (fides quae).
Modes, am I tracking with ya?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
Laika said...
... Prove to them that it's your God they've encountered, not theirs.
Exactly how would you prove to them what they encountered?
I content if they're still asking for some sort of syllogism, they probably didn't encounter God in the first place. If they experienced God, it would be nearly impossible to doubt it.
Only after they've begun wrestling with their encounter with God (fides qua) would syllogisms and the like be helpful (fides quae).
Modes, am I tracking with ya?
Joseph Smith truly encountered a god. But he was erroneous in which god he encountered. He never doubted it or swerved from his fides qua based on bad fides quae and got his own state.
2 Cor. 11:14No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/27/2005 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | |
Joseph Smith truly encountered a god. But he was erroneous in which god he encountered. He never doubted it or swerved from his fides qua based on bad fides quae and got his own state.
2 Cor. 11:14No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
We ourselves don't have access to Joseph Smith's mind, so we don't know exactly what he experienced. So I want to tone down that language a bit. It seems plausible (but not certain) to me that it could have been a demon, or I supposed it could have been a devious story he concocted, or he could have been quite sincere and delusional. But this really isn't my main point. I will gladly and readily admit that a person can have false or misplaced fides qua!
I simply contend that had Jospeh Smith had a true encounter with the living God that he would see immediately that his belief structure was incompatible. No syllogisms necessary. Isn't this essentially what will happen to all of us on judgement day -- a true encounter with the living God? Do you really think he's going to have to reason us out of our false beliefs?
My question is, how do we help people to encounter God? What syllogism would have compelled Joseph Smith to abandon his beliefs? Wouldn't the embodiment (fruit) of the Spirit in a person be a more compelling witness: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Goodness, Kindness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-control?
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/27/2005 10:20:09 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/27/2005 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Truth matters. It doesn't fix EVERYTHING. Being right about what's true doesn't amount to an encounter with God, no. But it does seem to me that there is some 'truth-encounter', some critical mass of information about Jesus, that makes trusting him as savior even possible. It's just insane to say truth about God only matters AFTER you've experienced God. If, by chance, say, God miraculous and unilaterally revealed himself to some pagan in the jungle who had no conception whatsoever of God, forming SOME conception, SOME information about what was happening to him as it happened would be a defining part OF the experience.
I'm just not getting the point of this thread. We're agreeing that the "act" and "content" of faith are both necessary (to living for a following Jesus). We're all agreeing that it's possible to be right on the "content" and not "act." We're all agreeing that it's possible to "act" on entirely erroneous "content." So what IS the debate about?
When I talk to Muslims, we talk about BOTH 'experience' and the 'content' of our faith. We definitely disagree on content. When Muslims say, "Well, Islam has given me an overwhelming experience of God that's undeniable and that confirms the content of my faith" (which includes his denial that Jesus died for the world and was raised from the grave), then hey, the conversation is OVER. Why think we have to have some great rebuttal to people at this point? When someone appeals to their personal experience as proof of their truth claims, the conversation is basically over. You're just comparing experiences. Sure, if you're in doubt about whether the truth claims a person makes really WORK in every day life, then THAT person's every day experience can serve to hurt or help the person's claims.
So, preach the gospel, share Christ, let your life and experience speak, and then shut up and get out of the way. The Holy Spirit must be necessary at SOME point, don'tcha think? We need to be comfortable doing our job and leaving things in God's hands. If THEIR experience seems to challenge our experience, so what? Tell them you're grateful for their experience but stikll want to challenge them to consider the truth-claims and life of Jesus. Then back off. Have a latte or piece of cheesecake. You can't crawll into people's hearts and minds and do what only God can do.
Relaxingly,
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/27/2005 10:40:00 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
My question is, how do we help people to encounter God? What syllogism would have compelled Joseph Smith to abandon his beliefs? Wouldn't the embodiment (fruit) of the Spirit in a person be more compelling as an initial witness: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Goodness, Kindness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-control?
I think scriptural correction given in the fruit of the spirit would have had the best chance.
I know more non-Christians who exhibit the fruit of the spirit, than do Christians. That can't be the sole basis.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/27/2005 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
It's just insane to say truth about God only matters AFTER you've experienced God. If, by chance, say, God miraculous and unilaterally revealed himself to some pagan in the jungle who had no conception whatsoever of God, forming SOME conception, SOME information about what was happening to him as it happened would be a defining part OF the experience.
I'm not intending say truth about God only matters AFTER you've experienced God. I'm not all that articulate and probably miscommunicated.
For me, this started in attempt to defend the notion that theistic belief can be properly basic, and a properly basic belief is not one which is rationally arrived at... although that is not to say that it is an irrational belief. A properly basic belief is indeed rational, er.. I should probably say "warranted."
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/27/2005 10:37:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/27/2005 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | I see your point Corey. I haven't at all read Plantinga who, I think, argues that theism IS a properly basic belief. I'm not sure what that even means. Does "properly basic" mean automatic, like belief in the existence of one's own mind (ala Descartes, who was right on here I think)? I don't see how it can be. So it's being "properly basic" must mean something else.
Well, even IF belief in God is properly basic, it's being so obviously doesn't mean we don't have to do a lot of explaining, counselling, and debating to move people into such a belief. So even if it is properly basic, it's inconsequential to the belief of those who already believe, and what's it matter to people who don't believe?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/27/2005 10:39:00 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/27/2005 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Amen to Selah, bring on the Spring!
Dang, when you don't check the board overnight and get back in to work the next day, you feel totally lost.
Here is still where I am at. I appreciate the importance of experience of the Triune God as the ultimate basis of a person's faith. But one point that needs to be made in line with this thread is that even in religious experience there has to be a propositional content to the experience. You still have to believe in the content of the experience (fides quae) before you can put you trust (fides qua) in that God.
#############################################
Modes,
Sorry that I am not making myself clear in trying to understand where you are coming from. My main problem echoes Alan's question as to why you erect such a great distinction between faith/reason. I don't see them in conflict. We have facts, experiences, and our God given rationality that present themselves to us. We are then faced with the existential choice as to whether we will submit to what reality shows us -- the truth of our contingency, sinfulness, and longing for meaning (the truths of the gospel), or if we will embrace our pride and refuse to submit to God.
I think that we're on the same page, but we're using different terms (you being a student of the SK school of thought and me being more of a rationalist)
Blessings, Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/27/2005 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: I think Plantinga's first goal was to establish that Christian belief is not irrational, can not be defeated by the various arguments offered by atheists and such. It was a defense, not an offense. I don't believe he attempts to build that further into a "proof" of God's existance, other than that to say that for me as an individual, an encounter with God has sufficient warrant for theistic belief.
Tom: There are such things as hallucinations, for example. If pure subjective experience is all that's needed to justify belief, then what of the beliefs of those who hallucinate other beings and objects? Something other than experience has to come into play, no?
I mean, your encounter with God didn't happen in an informational vacuum. You're experience OF God, my guess is, came in the context of a search FOR God, considering information about God. I guess that's Laika's point. The experience warrants believe in the experience, yes. But experience is never informationally vacuous. We seem hardwired to experience in an informational way, and then to fit our experiences into the totality of what we know and have previously experienced.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/27/2005 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | Yes, Plantinga does throw in a few more clauses that I can't recite off the top of my head, but he does make strong emphasis on "proper function"... i.e. one's cognitive faculties must not be screwed up if he is to have warranted belief.
He also talks about the neccesity of being in a congenial environment aimed at truth (or something like that. I'll look it up later.) which I take to mean that my brain could be working correctly, but I could be in an environment designed to deceive me, and thus my beliefs would be justified, but not warranted.
As a side note, I think to some extent we all suffer from both of these problems. Our cognitive faculties suffer from the noetic effects of sin, and we live in an environment that is intended to deceive us (The Matrix that Doc loves to talk about.)
As a result, I should expect that some my beliefs (fides quae) are not warranted, but I'm not cognizant of it.
[...later...]
Plantinga writes: “a belief has warrant if and only if it is produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at the production of true belief” (WCB, p. 498). Post Edited (Corey) : 1/28/2005 10:56:37 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/27/2005 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
It's just insane to say truth about God only matters AFTER you've experienced God. If, by chance, say, God miraculous and unilaterally revealed himself to some pagan in the jungle who had no conception whatsoever of God, forming SOME conception, SOME information about what was happening to him as it happened would be a defining part OF the experience.
What if God miraculously and unilaterally revealed to this pagan that he (the pagan) should love his neighbor, but the pagan has no idea this revelation came from God and he has no conception or information about God. Say he (the pagan) doesn't even know that this was revealed to him. He just knows/believes/feels it or whatever. And say the pagan never gives any thought to any propositional, abstract ideas about "loving one's neighbor". He never forms any conception about what was happening to him as it happened.
And so he does it (loves his neighbor) in some small way as a response to what he knows/believes/feels he should do.
Hasn't the pagan experienced God? Hasn't the pagan exercised fide qua?
(We're assuming that God "miraculously and unilaterally" revealed this in the first place. So the pagan is unknowingly responding to God.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/27/2005 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | |
JET,
You present an interesting thought there. It made me think of a book I read this past year by Illtyd Trethowan called "Absolute Value" where he argues that our most fundamental encounter with God comes through the recognition of value (its a nuanced version of the moral argument)
It was a great read!
What you present also jives with what Christ said in Matthew 25.
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
With all of the talk about Plantinga, maybe we should start another thread about his Reformed Epistemology?
Peace, Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/27/2005 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
I see your point Corey. I haven't at all read Plantinga who, I think, argues that theism IS a properly basic belief. I'm not sure what that even means. Does "properly basic" mean automatic, like belief in the existence of one's own mind (ala Descartes, who was right on here I think)? I don't see how it can be. So it's being "properly basic" must mean something else.
A basic belief is one that's held without reasoning from other beliefs. A properly basic belief is a basic belief that we are justified in holding -- that it isn't unreasonable or irrational for us to hold.
Let me nit-pick a little: I'm not saying theism is (as in always) a properly basic belief, I'm saying it can be. I'll acknowledge that some people's theistic beliefs are formed by inferential process.
The specific example we're dealing with in this thread is Meph's claim to have had a Damascus-road sort of encounter with God. I'm defending that Meph is warranted to hold this belief for himself (though none of the rest of us have access to what he experienced. For us, it's not properly basic, it's a testimony.) If he experienced God, he'd be justified to believe that he experienced God, and wouldn't have to reason himself to that conclusion.
I'll let Plantinga speak for himself:
Q. Some English philosophers-Farrer, Mascall, Trethowan, Owen, Lewis-see belief in God as being a fundamental insight triggered by certain experiences or under certain circumstances instead of seeing it as the end-product of an inferential process.
A. I'd go along with that. But I would say that for many people it's not so much a matter of coming to an insight by virtue of long hard thinking. It's more a matter of just being inclined, as Calvin says, under various circumstances, to form this belief about God.
Q. The fact you can't prove the truth of it does not mean you haven't had an insight or that the insight isn't valid.
A. It doesn't mean you don't it know either. It's not as if in order to know it you have to be able to prove it to the sceptic.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/27/2005 4:01:55 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/27/2005 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | |
Yo Tom,
When I was looking at JET's post, I guess I wasn't really reading the "miraculously and unilaterally" part as something like a vision or a voice from heaven. I was thinking along the lines of how God speaks to every man through the voice of moral value. I firmly believe that the recognition of the moral law, aesthetic beauty, and the supremecy of love is the beginning of God's communication to each of us. (think 1st book of Mere Christianity)
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/27/2005 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: A basic belief is one that's held without reasoning from other beliefs.
Plantinga: Q. Some English philosophers-Farrer, Mascall, Trethowan, Owen, Lewis-see belief in God as being a fundamental insight triggered by certain experiences or under certain circumstances instead of seeing it as the end-product of an inferential process.
A. I'd go along with that. But I would say that for many people it's not so much a matter of coming to an insight by virtue of long hard thinking. It's more a matter of just being inclined, as Calvin says, under various circumstances, to form this belief about God.
Tom: Looks like all Plantinga (and these others) is saying is that instead of our belief in God being the end-produce of an "inferential process" it's the end product of reasoning from "certain experiences or under certain circumstances" or just "being inclined." But I don't see a lot of difference between the two. The end-product of belief in God is still the result of "inference" and "reasoning." It's just reasoning inferentially from experience, circumstances, or inclination rather than abstract syllogisms. So I don't see how belief in God is "basic" if being basic means believing X without reasoning from other beliefs. So we're reasoning from experience. That makes it basic? That doesn't involve reasoning? Hmm. I mean, yeah, but you're still reasoning "from" your experience, or circumstance, and beliefs/assumptions about the nature of experience. I don't see what's gained.
I agree that Mephi's Damascus experience is legit. I've had my own encounters with God. That's the advantage of being a PENTECOSTAL ya'll! Heck yah. I just would suggest to Mephi that such experiences are more sophisticated things, things that include more reasoning and information that we might think. I don't think his mind and intellect were turned off, in other words. For example, with nothing outside of the experience itself, Mephi, what makes you think your Damascus experience was an experience with the Christian God and not some other divinity. Why do you conclude that this experience is peculiarly Christian? This is where I think there's a link between our experiences and what's happening intellectually/informationally inside our heads.
And with Mephi, I agree this all spills over into our undertanding of the inspiration of scripture. The scripture IS the testimony of other people to THEIR experience. But it's also their reasoning. There are some just plain arguments positing truth claims in the Bible too. But what makes their experience a vehicle of revelation to us? Nothing more than the faithful and accurate retelling of the experience. Israel's experience of God in the Red Sea revealed God to them because God WAS historically, really, there delivering them, and they knew it--just like Mephi knows that he knows God met him. And THEIR experience functions to reveal God to US they way it did to THEM when its faithfully and accurately told TO US. If it's inaccurate, then it's not a relaying of the same experience in which God was revealed, and I don't see how it reveals God the way the ACTUAL event revealed God. No, the actual event revealed God and we get to see that revelation only when we see the actual event (through its being retold to us).
Is SOME exaggeration and inaccurancy compatible with the text's revealing God to us? Sure. How much? I don't know. I don't think a whole lot. At some point increasing inaccuracy compromises historical integrity and the event is lost, and with it any revelation.
ToPost Edited (TGB) : 1/27/2005 4:24:47 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/27/2005 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
If belief in God is properly basic, i.e., if it's NOT reached by reasoning, then how is one held accountable for refusing to believe in God? If it's just an experience that you have or don't have and which, if you have it, is undeniable. Then how are people to blame for refusal to believe? In fact, what can "refusing to believe" even mean?
I think we're held responsible for how we choose to respond to the revelation that God has given us. Here I would make a distinction between a properly basic belief and faith. In my usage here, faith is the the fitting response to the properly basic beliefs formed by our encounter with God. Still it is possible to choose an unfitting response and harden our hearts to him. I think this fits well with Rom 1:18-21. Also reminds me of, "the demons also believe, and shudder"... it's not enough to merely believe.
[... later ...]
I've been thinking about your question some more because the premise of it seemed curious to me. I took the premise to be: accountability entails that beliefs must be formed by reasoning. Now I understand I was probably wrong on that.
I think your charge here is that since a person does not have control over whether or not they experience God in a properly basic way (it's all up to God) then she should not be held accountable if she doesn't have such an experience. Makes sense to me. However, if God does in fact clearly reveal himself to all (Rom 1:18-19), then he's not culpable for some choosing to reject him. By choosing to reject him, their hearts harden and the truth of the experience is suppressed... in a word, it is a dysfunctional condition to not believe in God. Post Edited (Corey) : 1/27/2005 6:22:31 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 87 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|