you're missing the distinction here between fact and truth, these are not the same thing. Fact (that which has happened) cannot be the object of faith in the same way something that is unseen or yet to happen is. Faith is being contrasted to *fact* - or "reality". (idem)
-
-
Replying to @gtaogle @ETDEUMPURITAS
Something that has happened is always an object of faith. There is no unmediated, direct access to 'facts'--even immediate sense perception doesnt deliver facts apart from a faith that your senses map onto an objective exterior reality (something unprovable).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheIllegit @ETDEUMPURITAS
You are erecting a standard of proof never possible, and this is arguing in bad faith! the trust in senses and accounts with regards to facts is different in kind than that regarding revealed truths. In fact, revelations are often given in a "factual" form - concrete visions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle @ETDEUMPURITAS
It's different only in the sense that the latter is a theological virtue, but not fundamentally different. Belief in the exterior world's correspondance to normal sense perception is just faith that e.g. God is not a deceiver, and the world is part of his self-revelation..
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheIllegit @ETDEUMPURITAS
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle @ETDEUMPURITAS
What mechanism are you implying can yield the truth that our senses reliably map the exterior world, other than faith?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheIllegit @ETDEUMPURITAS
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle @ETDEUMPURITAS
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheIllegit @ETDEUMPURITAS
This is pure Enlightenment f*ckery, my bro!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle @ETDEUMPURITAS
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.
