this isn't the problem, I think. It's claiming that these things are not based on truth, but on belief, which has never been the classical Christian claim. It's not because we believe, but because it is true - we believe it because it is true.
this is not faith though! People do not have faith in their senses in any literal sense, Duff! This is an analogy or metaphor! If we treat this, we end up as academic skeptics; claiming all sense is held by faith but functioning - like everyone does - with immediate sense.
-
-
What mechanism are you implying can yield the truth that our senses reliably map the exterior world, other than faith?
-
dude... that is what our senses do, insofar as they are functioning correctly. There is no actual intermediary layer (although we are able to impose one when things seem odd to us--) but we are limited to what our senses detect, obviously.
-
There is no way to know that they do, is the point. I agree that they do because God is not a deceiver. How would I know that this is what they do sans this faith? Why can't I be a brain in a vat being lied to?
-
This is pure Enlightenment f*ckery, my bro!
-
Which is why I am not positing it. I am asking how someone who doesnt acknowledge the epistemological necessity of faith (i.e. not me who does) answers the question, and escapes the skeptical critique.
-
they simply do what they always do, see it as a metaphysical claim which seems to them to not be "in" what the see, and reject it
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
