The problem with qualification; my view on faith and reason

 Let’s say you’re being interrogated and you aren’t allowed to ask any clarifying question and you must give an answer per question. Your answer options will be: Yes, No, I don’t know, Most of the time, or A small amount of time. 

The inquisitor’s intention is to see if you’re mentally stable for a job you would be able to have if you pass the interrogation. If you fail, you don’t get the job.


The inquisitor: Do you at times feel like smashing something?


You thinking silently to answer the question: *I felt like smashing things when I was a boy angry about not getting my toy. But should I answer, “Yes” to the inquisitor’s question? If I answer, “Yes” it will lower my chance of getting the job and it may make me seem like someone who is easily angered or smashes things abnormally. Moreover, even if I didn’t feel like smashing things when I was a boy not getting my toy, surely I wanted to smash the hammer against the high striker machine at the carnivore last week. Should I say, “Yes” now? Maybe I should make a silent qualification. Maybe the inquisitor means, “Do you at times feel like smashing something *that is harmful*?” If that’s the case, surely wanting to smash something because of the toy or the carnival game is not harmful. But if I can make such a qualification then why not just qualify questions so much so that I can truthfully tell something even though it tricks the inquisitor? For example, if the inquisitor asks, “Did you eat hotdogs at 3:00PM PST recently?” I can qualify the question to, “Did you eat hotdogs at 3:00 and 39 seconds PM PST recently?” Yes, I did eat hotdogs at 3:00PM but I finished with the hotdogs at 3:00PM and 38 seconds PM PST. So, no I didn’t eat hotdogs at 3:00 (and 39 seconds) PM PST.*


Things like this makes me wary of *reason* itself. Faith seems to actually be on par with reason at the very least and even more so, faith is greater than reason, as the CCC teaches.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more