1984 & A/S/K revisited

[FallentoReason]

What is your definition of "faith"? It seems you put faith and reason in conflict with one another. They work in partnership. Faith goes beyond reason.

I would think "faith" is a sort of "trust". The question here seems to be if it is justified trust, like when I get on a bus and I trust the driver not to crash. I would use some simple reasoning that would lead me to think it's rational to trust him/her, such as think to myself when was the last time a bus driver crashed in my city (dealing with probabilities), assuming he/she has been doing the job for years and therefore has the experience (dealing with an understanding of the nature of employment) etc etc. I would assume you think your faith in e.g. the A/S/K method is justified, but how exactly? You have no prior evidence that it works, which means it's literally a blind leap of faith into the unknown. Why not also believe 2 + 2 is 5?

At some point the senses have to give up their quest for knowledge.

Why, so that we can believe the snake oil salesman? It doesn't sound rational in the least to say that we have to let go of the senses in order to believe something. Would it be sensible for me to have faith that when I get on the bus, it will take off and fly? No, because my senses tell me the bus doesn't hold such an ability to do that.

Let's think of an example closer to A/S/K: an organisation tells people that if they give them $10 a day, eventually the CEO will give them 1 million dollars. I could do background checks on this organisation and talk to people about it and come to the conclusion that they are a fraud OR I could have faith that they will follow through and give me 1 million dollars. Do I trust my senses/reasoning or am I justified in simply putting trust into them?

A Christian is one who journeys on past the natural epistemic boundaries. God is, by definition, not of this world. So one needs faith to "see" Him.

Ah, so now it's all about 66 seeing 99, is it? Why the jump from literally experiencing him to a metaphorical experience? I have the feeling I might have gotten to you and you're having to readjust to your new-found cognitive dissonance... this is always the way; salvage the belief and adapt the view to somehow still harmonize with the belief.

And once they presume His presence, everything else makes sense (kind of like starting a theory with a hypothesis).

It's not like a theory and hypothesis in the least. A hypothesis will make an educated guess as to what the results are going to be. The theory is the explanation for the observations after the experiment, which will either prove your hypothesis right or wrong. If we think of A/S/K in these terms we then have our hypothesis saying that A/S/K will result in an experience with God. Now, what you've said is "once they presume his presence, everything else makes sense"... in other words, screw the experiment, the theory is that God speaks to you through A/S/K because we "presume his presence". Thus, our hypothesis gets an automatic tick since we've fixed the entire thing to fit our unjustified presupposition. You're telling me to override the entire process and just presuppose God. Reason seems to have been left at the door altogether.

Having to "presume his presence" would be like presuming the organisation's legitimacy. Of course, from then on "everything will make sense" and after spending thousands of dollars, you still won't doubt for a second that a 1 million dollar check is coming your way.

---

The OP only deals with the method of A/S/K which claims that direct experiences will result.

Does not what I say result in direct experience, the answer would be yes, just trying to help. Since the results are the same I see no problem in using my statement, or does this pose a problem for your argument.

I just find it too generalized of a statement. That's why I said I'm dealing just with A/S/K here because that way we can analyze a particular beast.

Looking back at your statement, I guess I do have something to comment on.

There is no method of coming to faith in Christ, many different experiences are described by Christians, to some degree you need to know what your committing to. The rest comes as you experience God in a daily walk with Him. One could say you first come to Christ in faith and through faith will come belief and through belief comes knowledge and in this knowledge comes the wonderful relationship that goes beyond description.

Faith -> belief -> knowledge. I find that order to be a problem that is parallel to the OP. Why not knowledge -> belief -> faith? E.g. I come to know that a chair is made up of sturdy parts. This knowledge allows me to form a belief that it can hold someone's weight, therefore, I will put my faith into it that when I sit on it, it won't collapse under my weight. I sit on it and, viola, it doesn't collapse. My entire thought process lead to a justified application of faith.

No, you seem to suggest that I first have to put faith into it... right so I'll put myself out there from the word "go", sit on it, and hope for the best. It doesn't break under my weight... "ah!", I come to believe it's designed to hold my body weight. I can then inspect it and obtain the knowledge that it's made of sturdy parts. My wanting to put faith in it first was completely unjustified, a leap of faith for no apparent reason.

Why is it reasonable to apply your order of faith -> belief -> knowledge when it seems like it's rather silly for anything else we have faith on?