Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Res Ipsa]

The “reasoned” part of reasoned faith is devoted to establishing what is possible, not what is. What is is presumed. And, with God, all things are possible.

I think you’re exactly right about how “reasoned faith” often functions. The believer treats what is as already settled, and uses reason to support that predetermination.

I’d like to talk about this some more. I've been thinking through a proposition that fulfilled prophesy is evidence of a Christ figure, fulfilled by Jesus; mostly because I just find the suffering-servant references in the prophetic texts compelling.

What I’m thinking through is perhaps that a result from that view becomes more an interpretive conclusion, not an evidentiary requirement.

So the question is, am I using a possibility to protect a fixed conclusion? Or am I pre-fixing a solution? These are genuine questions and I’m trying to be honest about why that interpretation resonates with me.

Interesting question. How do you experience what you are doing?

[Limnor]

I think you’re exactly right about how “reasoned faith” often functions. The believer treats what is as already settled, and uses reason to support that predetermination.

I’d like to talk about this some more. I've been thinking through a proposition that fulfilled prophesy is evidence of a Christ figure, fulfilled by Jesus; mostly because I just find the suffering-servant references in the prophetic texts compelling.

What I’m thinking through is perhaps that a result from that view becomes more an interpretive conclusion, not an evidentiary requirement.

So the question is, am I using a possibility to protect a fixed conclusion? Or am I pre-fixing a solution? These are genuine questions and I’m trying to be honest about why that interpretation resonates with me.

Interesting question. How do you experience what you are doing?

What I’m doing is extending the conversation about faith and reason and exploring the meaning of reading these texts without deciding ahead of time what they have to prove. I want to understand what the text itself can sustain before anyone starts calling it “evidence.”

I’ve been reading some Kierkegaard (yikes) and seeking to tie his thinking to this thread. So I guess I’d describe it in Kierkegaard’s terms: letting reason do its full work, and then staying honest about what it can’t resolve instead of forcing a conclusion.

You lot are some of the deepest thinkers I know, so I’m interested in your comments.

[Res Ipsa]

LOL. More projection.

To me it appeared that Limnor was using A.I., especially at the speed we were going back and forth. But yeah, I guess he could be super humanly awesome.

Regards,
MG

LOL. What Limnor posted was very clever. But super human? Nah. Neither was your projection.

[Limnor]

Just to be clear, my interest going forward isn’t polemical. I’m genuinely exploring the relationship between reason and faith, and Kierkegaard gives one kind of answer. I’m curious what others think, wherever they land.

There is an LDS intersection, yes, because there is a historical issue in that Joseph altered his revelations. Whatever else is believed about that, it has a straightforward consequence. A revelation that can be revised is troublesome in determining epistemic certainty.

[Gadianton]

When I was at the Lord's university I had a teacher who taught Kierkegaard as the answer to everything. I suppose it was this that led me into a brief postmodernism phase as a way to save the Church, as the lights were dimming. If the religious mode represents faith, how does this coexist with reason, exactly? I don't see how the religious mode of living is guaranteed to check the boxes of orthodoxy, rather, it seems to revel in the possibility of evading orthodoxy.

[Limnor]

When I was at the Lord's university I had a teacher who taught Kierkegaard as the answer to everything.

How? From what I’m taking away from Kierkegaard the LDS system doesn’t fit. What was the teacher’s approach?

Edited to add: I’m not even an amateur when it comes to Kierkegaard, so this come from a place of “101.”

[Gadianton]

Finding the answer in postmodernists was a thing, and now it's a big thing for the new MI. Kierkegaard was the guy for that teacher. When he got to the the part on Nietzsche, he took a few days off and let his buddy teach the class, as Nietzsche was his guy, and for him the gospel was all about Nietzsche. Later on, after those classes drifted into the past, I discovered there was commotion among Mormon intellectuals about Heidegger and Derrida even more so. Is Mormonism compatible with all these guys? Seems like they've got some things to figure out.

So that guy's interpretation of Alma 32 was based on Kierkegaard. I found it quite inspiring at the time, he was a very good teacher. The only class I ever took where I sat on the front row. I'm very tired at the moment and so I can't think of any details. If something comes to me I'll let you know.

[huckelberry]

When I was at the Lord's university I had a teacher who taught Kierkegaard as the answer to everything. I suppose it was this that led me into a brief postmodernism phase as a way to save the Church, as the lights were dimming. If the religious mode represents faith, how does this coexist with reason, exactly? I don't see how the religious mode of living is guaranteed to check the boxes of orthodoxy, rather, it seems to revel in the possibility of evading orthodoxy.

A multiple faceted but interesting subject here. Perhaps orthodoxy and faith are fundamentally different things. They might overlap or not depending upon what is orthodox. Orthodoxy has many forms, perhaps determined by the accidents of circumstance.

[Dr. Shades]

An abundance of em dashes and bulleted lists along with vocabulary uncharacteristic of the author.

Oh Shades. Bless your heart.

Am I wrong?

Thank you for your insightful contribution. You've convinced me by sheer force of logic.

You’re impervious to logic, buddy. Enjoy your future of users AI sliding threads.

Okay, let's do it your way. When you identify a post as being A.I.-generated, show me your actual proof instead of merely declaring it to be A.I. like you did last time.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Or take two seconds and run it through a generator and see for yourself. Literally copy, paste, read, make a judgment.