There is a basic reality which is too vast for feeble beings to comprehend.
Our instruments only sense a tiny part of the spectrum. From trusted friends we gain a broader perspective, much like a large array telescope. .From this incomplete collection we extrapolate our model of the universe.
This is not knowing, it is faith. It is very incomplete but it works for us.
Faith isn't hoping so, or trusting so or betting or wagering. Faith is "knowing", albeit on the basis of no tangible evidence. You're right, it works: because we reason that it works, but instead of reasoning on the basis of "known fact" we reason based on our faith. As I say, the leap of faith is a necessary step to gaining understanding. The debate about the existence of God circles entirely around that leap of faith. My foundation for reasoning the existence of God is predicated on whether, supposing a certain model existed, it actually stands to reason, and thereby I draw on a concept that is universal: reason. However, it is reason that in and of itself results in disbelief in God, so it is contradictory. It is only the leap of faith that allows any talk of the reason that lies behind the concept of God to make any sense. The distinction here has to be drawn between faith and blind faith. The starting point for blind faith is simply "Should I believe or shouldn't I?"; for the former, where faith is backed by reason, the enquiry is more "I believe, but why should I be believing?" It is a path of continual enquiry. Thank you for your thoughts.
There is a basic reality which is too vast for feeble beings to comprehend.
Our instruments only sense a tiny part of the spectrum. From trusted friends we gain a broader perspective, much like a large array telescope. .From this incomplete collection we extrapolate our model of the universe.
This is not knowing, it is faith. It is very incomplete but it works for us.
If you have any interest, this "path of continual enquiry" is pursued in a post of more recent date, here: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/superstition-and-photography
Faith isn't hoping so, or trusting so or betting or wagering. Faith is "knowing", albeit on the basis of no tangible evidence. You're right, it works: because we reason that it works, but instead of reasoning on the basis of "known fact" we reason based on our faith. As I say, the leap of faith is a necessary step to gaining understanding. The debate about the existence of God circles entirely around that leap of faith. My foundation for reasoning the existence of God is predicated on whether, supposing a certain model existed, it actually stands to reason, and thereby I draw on a concept that is universal: reason. However, it is reason that in and of itself results in disbelief in God, so it is contradictory. It is only the leap of faith that allows any talk of the reason that lies behind the concept of God to make any sense. The distinction here has to be drawn between faith and blind faith. The starting point for blind faith is simply "Should I believe or shouldn't I?"; for the former, where faith is backed by reason, the enquiry is more "I believe, but why should I be believing?" It is a path of continual enquiry. Thank you for your thoughts.