I'm not surprised (thought slightly dissapointed) by CK not
wanting to respond to whatever I put forward to him , for he is
simply avoiding the obvious. As much as I have warm respect for his
fighting spirit I have to declare that it is apparent that he has
very little understanding of the word 'faith', or even the very
word 'experience' itself.
Firstly I am not sure how he can make the statement I am totally
confused, beyond the useage of sheer jargon. But of course as much
as 'confusion' may be a powerful metaphor as a jargon, it is
useless if it is not true.
And that is what it is, my justification is this. My stance has
been crystal clear since the first post, and I wonder who it is
here, with a constantly changing, and self-contradicting case here
that could be a better fit of confusion. He may deny the courts of
logic, but it is going to try and find him guilty anyway.
What we have heard from him is jargons and slogans for faith, most of which he
had never attempted to justify, but simply put it onto people as
something we ought to listen to anyway. Indeed most of his verbage
here has been spent on making jargon and slogan, and very little in
the way of justifying it.
If anybody is to be guilty of a false notion of faith, and is
guilty of cutting it down to a reductible and cynical concept, then
it would very well be he.
But for the sake of the rest, I shall put his fallacy in simple
terms for the rest to understand, having seen through it quite
clearly:
What CK is quite clearly saying is this, that in order to have
faith there can be no justification besides faith itself. Which is
utter nonsense at a moments' thought. This was never what the
apostles meant when they said that it was impossible to please God
except by which through faith.
It is really simple to see why CK, as brave as he is in an attempt
to defend the self-contradictary, is fatally flawed in the sense
that his own argument kills itself.
What he is saying to us in effect is, "have faith in anything", he
derives this 'anything' from the sole fact that God cannot be
comprehended rationally and hence no concepts or intellectual
notions of God must ever be held in the faith. What is most amazing
is that he harps only on this fact without considering other first
principles, which was what he first stepped on to arrive at his
conclusion at the first place.
C.S. Lewis and G.K Chesterton put it nicely: that in order to
believe in anything at all, you must have something to believe in,
but that something cannot be simplyanything. Stripping away ideas of God
on sheer virtue that they come from the intellect is obviously C.K.
idea (and oddly enough he uses the intellect to arrive at this
conclusion). If you do that you will arrive at anything which is the exactly opposite
of faith, simply because faith is exclusive.
By saying 'believe in anything', you are simply saying 'it does not
matter what you believe.', which is tatamount to saying 'what you
believe does not matter at all.', which is equal to saying 'faith
does not matter'. In one fell swoop, C.K. has sawed off the plank
he is sitting on, and curses everybody else at the incongruity of
his own case.
The appeal to sheer faithful faith destroys all truth, for truth is
exclusive of falsehood, and in any case it was never what the
apostles were talking about in the first place. It is obvious that
he never knew what he was talking about in the first place, except
that the jargon sounded good to him, and was good to defend because
by appealing to the sheer internal logic of the slogan he can
deflect all logic.
Of course we know better. I rest my case, let all who are here see
and judge.
