Too many people in our day think with their feelings. “Feeling-speak” is so pervasive in our culture that the vast majority of us talk about what we think in terms of what we feel. For example, one might say “I feel that Christianity is true” rather than “I think Christianity is true.” Feelings are wholly subjective and have no truth value – they cannot be true or false. They just describe our psychological dispositions. Thoughts, however, do have truth value. They purport to describe reality, and the description is either true or false.
Since our ideas and beliefs have truth value, let’s be intentional about speaking in terms of what we think rather than what we feel.
Thinking to Believe 
January 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm
I “think/believe/feel/etc..” that Christianity is true. To me it doesn’t matter how you fill in the blank because no one can prove Christianity is true, it’s a matter of faith. If it could be proven, wouldn’t everyone not only be Christian but have all the same Christian beliefs?
LikeLike
January 24, 2014 at 5:34 pm
Paul,
Thoughts are ideas about the external world. If they correspond to the way the world really is, then they are true. If they do not, then they are false. So thoughts have truth value. The same cannot be said of feelings. Feelings are about one’s personal psychology. They are subjective in nature, not objective. Since Christianity makes objective claims, when we talk about our thoughts regarding Christianity, we should speak in terms of our thoughts, not our feelings. To speak about how we feel regarding objects is to confuse categories.
As for your characterization of faith, I can’t agree. Faith is not what you fall back on when you have no good reasons to believe X is true, but rather trust in what you have good reason to think is true.
As for the inability to “prove” Christianity is true, if by “prove” you mean “certainty beyond a doubt,” then you are right, Christianity cannot be proven. But that is a bad definition of proof. If that’s the definition, there are very few things that can be proven. But Christianity can be proven beyond reasonable doubt given the abundance of evidence in favor of Christianity.
And no, the fact that one can prove Christianity is true beyond reasonable doubt would not mean that everyone would be Christian for a couple of reasons. First, not everyone is aware of the evidence. Secondly, becoming a Christian is not just about rationality. There’s also the will. The religious leaders in Jesus’ day knew His miracles were real, and yet they still wanted to kill Him. People’s will is often more influential in what they believe than their rationality. As for all Christians having the same beliefs, don’t confuse the truth of Christianity with all the particular doctrines of Christianity. Proving particular doctrines is a matter of exegesis, which is not as straight forward as the arguments for Christian theism writ large.
Jason
LikeLike
January 25, 2014 at 12:25 am
Jason,
If someone said “I feel man made global warming is true” I would agree with you, but with religion it is very different. I can say, there is a creation so there must be a creator, that creator is ? dead end. I call that creator God and believe God is revealed to us by His Son Jesus Christ, but billions of people disagree with me. Whether I say I feel or I think Christianity is true doesn’t matter to the non-believer — they want proof.
LikeLike
January 25, 2014 at 7:34 am
While the phrase “I feel” in the dictionary definition is associated with the tactile sense of touch and used in the psychological sense of express a range of emotions, joy, sorrow, love. happiness etc., however, in colloquial conversation, “I feel” is merely another way of saying “I think”, “I suppose”, “I understand”, “I perceive”, having an “awareness”; also, used to indicate as in
to believe, or be of the opinion (that): he feels he must resign.
Jesus never performed a miracle that cannot be explained and that has not been replicated many times since; but, the masses “felt”, “believed”, “perceived” that the event was miraculous; they perceived it as a miracle.
In those days the Roman military was capable of feeding thousands of their soldiers but for one apparent person to amass enough fishes and bread to feed several thousand ordinary common people was unheard of. MY father was a cook in the army and in a military hospital and he fed thousands too. Today of course we call this feeding “Restaurants”, Fast Food Outlets or McDonalds.
At the Cana wedding the servants filled the six crocks with water that held 20 to 30 gallons. After filling one crock they went to fetch more water for the other crocks while other servants removed the water crock and replaced it with the wine filled crock. This was repeated until the crocks were filled and each crock put on a dolly to take to the wedding feast while the water crocks were taken to the winery fermentation plant.
It was easy for Jesus to perform this so called, so perceived miracle because his best friend best friend was Joseph of Arimathea one of the wealthiest men in town and follower of Jesus as well as Nicodemus who was also reputed to be the third richest man in town, both of whom were members of the Sanhedrin, leaders of the Jews and secret disciples of Jesus. These same two men had designed the hewn-out tomb wherein Jesus was laid after appealing directly to Pilate, face to face; the same who brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight to and wound it in linen clothes with the spices around the body of Jesus, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
Christians simply accept these events as miracles but the explanations were merely unknown, kept secret, not revealed except to a few of us to whom truth has been revelated.
LikeLike
January 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm
I think its important to use our rational faculties and refrain from emotional statements. Usually emotional thinking leads us to make irrational statements. This happens when we get angry or have resentment.
It’s this kind of response that can reduce the miracles of Jesus to a Big Mac.
Naz
LikeLike
January 25, 2014 at 12:47 pm
SonofMan,
That is the problem with Christianity specifically and religion in general — they deal with both the natural and super natural or spiritual worlds. As a Christian I can say the evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth is “and mention the non Biblical source” and we can discuss the evidence. But once we get into the super natural or spiritual world you can’t use statements like that because by definition you are out of the realm of the natural world. All you can really do is use scripture/reason/logic/etc.. to compare the teachings of say Islam to Christianity or say test the teachings of a Preacher to the Bible.
LikeLike
January 25, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Yes Paul:
That is so. Comparing one religious insanity to another religious insanity is like a person converting from one religion to another one, the nonsense is the same.
I do however test the teachings of a Preacher to the Bible and find them wanting, mainly because the Preachers are too content with the supernatural while disregarding the natural. This is also the reason that rational faculties of many are held hostage by the barriers of anger, resentment and emotion by refusing to see the similarities between feeding 5,000 people with Big Mac Fishburgers from the storeroom or feeding them with fish and bread from the cache; they can’t admit the simplicity that was in Jesus, for example, performing an easily explained non miracle over the complicated, unprovable perceived miracle which hoax has been perpetrated on generations for thousands of years.
It becomes too difficult if not impossible for long standing religionists to admit they have been wrong(hoodwinked) for their entire life by irrational lies; the evidence of which is clearly captured in comment number 5 above.
LikeLike
January 28, 2014 at 8:12 am
While I disagree with SonofMan in the whole of his conjectures, it would seem he is right in his conclusion of the colloquial usage of “I feel.”
As far as a linguistic analysis goes, the expression “I feel” is often used interchangeably with the phrase “I think.” The phrase “I think” (at least here in the South) does not seem to always suggest one’s definite thoughts on a matter. “I feel” would seem to imply uncertainty on a matter, but “I think” also implies some element of uncertainty. Rather, when we are expressing our definite thoughts on a matter, it is my observation that we merely state them without prefixing them with either phrase.
While we cannot escape the nuances between “I feel” and “I think,” it would seem they become blurred in common speech. However, I agree, Jason, that we need to emphasize that our opinions and thoughts are based on more than subjective emotions, and that rational thought and a survey of data supports such conclusions as the truth of Christianity.
LikeLike
January 28, 2014 at 1:36 pm
While I disagree with Beaux Hargrove in the whole of his conjectures: I get a kick out of your characterization of my comments.
Now when it comes to conjecture, it is out of such that Christianity was born….
Regarding the editing, embellishment, ommission, additions, translations of the bible etc“….could we not suppose that there could be such a thing as “inspired supplementation”? Yeah…the God justification again!
“All of our philosophy must be soundly rooted in and supported by Scripture.”
Here’s an example of a scriptural philosophy Christianity accepts which is ludicrous to imagine they would accept such nonsense thinking:
Rom 11:1 faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” And it gives an example of this thinking in Rom 11:5-6, “5-6 By an act of faith, Enoch skipped death completely. “They looked all over and couldn’t find him because God had taken him.” We know on the basis of reliable testimony that before he was taken “he pleased God.” And that is the evidence that God took him and he did not die!
In other words if you hope(think) for something and believe, that belief by itself proves that what you hope for actually exists. Did I say that too fast?: Because you believe in what you hope for, that by itself is evidence that what you hope for actually exists. Offer that as evidence in a court of law and you will be the laughing stock of the community.
The Bible is a purely human book that evolved over time and is inspired merely by the imagination, notwithstanding the good/bad wolves inside every human(see Cherokee Legend in previous post.), albeit under influence of previous generations whose education and knowledge was even less than their own authorship; nevertheless defending it still to maintain the consistency of religious creations, not the least of which is their concept of God(s):
“….rational thought and a survey of data supports such conclusions as the truth of Christianity.” Well Beaux, according to Romans 11:1, if 2 billion Christians “believe” the truth of Christianity that is evidence enough to prove the truth of Christianity….wow. Actually you probably need only one person to make it true.
Here are a few of the creations of religion just a few out of thousands created since the year dot……believe it and they are all true because of the evidence of your belief as per Rom 11:1 philosophy. OMG
Yamm, Sia, Set, Seker, Osiris, Re (Ra), Meskhenet, Kek and Kauket, Isis, Heh and Hauhet, Horus, Baal, Anuket, Am-Heh, Odin, Krishna, Cheng-huang, Brahma, Apollo, Toyotama, Shichi Fuku Jin, Kami, Fugen, Baku, Zeus, Thor, Neptune, Not to forget the gods of current popularity Jehovah, Allah and plain old God.
None of them existed either, nor do the angels, demons, jinn of the desert, boogie men, ghosts, goblins, leprechauns, tooth fairies and sandman.
LikeLike
January 28, 2014 at 10:40 pm
Unfortunately, as an emotional creature, I highly doubt one can truly separate their thoughts from their feelings – can they?
One thing philosophers have to grapple with is the reality of their own biases, and the fact that they are there and can not be detracted from their arguments anymore than they can be detracted from themselves as an individual. At times, arguments and writings will require the individual to be explicit with these biases before continuing, lest a combatant destroy the argument made with the author’s biases.
LikeLike
January 29, 2014 at 9:12 am
Paul,
Yes, unbelievers want evidence, but that’s not the issue. The issue is how we talk about our thoughts. If we are talking about thoughts, then we should say “I think that….” If we are talking about our feelings, then we should say, “I feel that….” To talk about our thoughts with “I feel” language is a confusion of categories. And while some in our culture interpret “I feel” to mean “I think,” the fact remains that “I feel” connotes one’s subjective feelings about something. Since discussions of truth are discussions about thoughts, I think we should dispense with the “I feel” language because it is confusing and unhelpful.
Jason
LikeLike
January 29, 2014 at 9:12 am
SonofMan and Beaux,
Yes, “I feel” is a colloquial way of saying “I think.” I acknowledged that from the beginning. The problem with it is that it is unclear. Given the context, a listener can discern that you are actually talking about your thoughts rather than your feelings, but couching it in “I feel” language still puts the emphasis on subjective feelings, which is not the source of one’s convictions if those convictions are derived from a thoughtful argument.
Jason
LikeLike
January 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Jason:
I do not feel confused by someone using the expression, “I feel” to communcate their thoughts as you say you are but I do understand that in the use of English University entrance exam, for instance, one may receive corrective comments on the test paper for using that expression to mean what they think and not what they feel.
LikeLike
February 5, 2014 at 2:47 pm
I think it is interesting to compare your expressions here about “I feel” and “I think” with the remarks from Jesus’ disciples. In Caesarea Phillipi Jesus asked his disciples “Who do men say that I am? After giving the ideas that people had about Jesus, He then asked, “But who do you say I am?” Peter’s comments were rock solid when he said – “You are the Christ, the Son of the LIving God”. And Jesus’ very instructive reply was “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven has revealed this to you.
This was not a matter of think or feel – this was a statement of fact that Jesus confirmed that Peter had learned from the Father. This was “I know.”
There are many things we “know” We know we are alive, we know the sun rises, we “know” is much more concrete than I think or I feel. Any person to me who does not “know” that Jesus is the Christ, while he may believe in Christ I think they are on pretty shaky ground.
To know is to be settled and not have any more questions that require you to be a Philadelphia lawyer to discuss your concepts with others. The gospel is not difficult – even children can understand it. We tend to make it much more difficult than it is with our attempts to use huge philosophical arguments.
And for SonofMan I would suggest that you can know the same as Peter, but it requires a very simple thing that most people aren’t willing to do. It requires that you actually get down on your knees and in simplicity and sincerity (that’s the hard part) simply ask God if Christ actually lived, died, and rose so we could do likewise.
LikeLike
February 5, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Paul Plumb:
I appreciate what you are saying but what you are saying regarding the SonofMan’s positin and understanding is way off base; obviously, you have not read all my previous comments, just a few snippets, so let me refresh your mind and give you some insight……please…
The Son of Man has always had the Holy Spirit within but just didn’t recognize it early on through the web and haze the clergy wove into the fabric of stoneage society with supernaturalism, the antitheses of the real God, the Father of humanity indwelling the human spirit, inside each and every one of us.
Jesus revealed that knowledge so we too may claim, as he did, to be the Son of Man, real man, not man as you and I were, not man as the clergy brainwashed society aspires to, guilty & groveling, but real, blood-filled, life-energized man with the Spirit living within His Kingdom, within his man.
When I was 12 years old I was Peter! I knew at that time that Jesus was so special I wanted to know everything I could about him and so I lingered on every word he said.
I also knew that Jesus did not require or even suggest that we get down on our knees, shed tears and cry out that we were so such sinners….That is so Hollywood and so much the way of the world’s interpretation of Jesus but that not what Jesus ever, ever said to do. Jesus was totally peeved with the pretense of lengthy prayers in public for show; he said simply in your privacy let your thoughts be unto you in truth.
Remember, Peter and all the disciples and apostles still did not recognize that the Father Jesus talked about was not the supernatural ghost goblin of the status quo; Jesus talked about the Father that resides within you.
Jesus knew THE Father in him was THE Father in everyone and THE Father in everyone is the Good Guide for every human, if you let him. Having faith in the Good that resides in you is your just award; you just need to make the connection for your just reward by understanding and accepting the simplicity that was in Jesus because the just reward is available to everyone who is available to what you already have:
ALL there is of Good is available to the man who is available to all there is of Good. And that’s a Good thing.
Did I say that too fast? ALL there is of Good is available to the man who is available to all there is of Good. Such things of good: joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.
I have these things and I thank the person who gave them to me, Jesus.
I am Peter!
LikeLike
February 6, 2014 at 1:15 am
Paul,
It’s good to distinguish between the technical meaning of a word, and the customary meaning or connotation of a word. You make a distinction between “I think” and “I know.” If I am understanding you properly, for you, “I think” connotes uncertainty, whereas “I know” connotes certainty. While this may be a popular understanding/use of these terms, I don’t think it is an accurate representation of their meaning. Neither word has anything to do with one’s level of certainty regarding some proposition. We can know something without being certain that it is true. For example, I know that my car is in my driveway right now even though I can’t see it. I can’t be certain of that since it’s always possible someone stole it while I’m typing this, or that my wife drove to the store recently without my knowledge of it. But surely I can say I know my car is in my driveway. That’s because knowledge is justified, true belief. “Certain” is not part of the definition. One only needs adequate justification to believe something is true before it rises to the level of knowledge; they don’t need certainty.
Similarly, we can have a thought about something without being certain of it. And yet, there are some things that we can be certain of, which we would also have thoughts regarding. For example, I am certain that 2+2=4 and that bachelors are unmarried males. For me to know these propositions are true requires that I have thoughts regarding them. And if I have thoughts about them, then it is appropriate to say “I think….”
One simply cannot know something without thinking it. Knowledge requires thinking, though not every thought rises to the level of knowledge–not because we are not certain about the thought, but because it may not have the proper justification, or because it is not true.
My focus on this string has not been what people mean by saying “I feel” and “I think” (or even “I know”), or even whether we are able to discern what they mean. My focus has been on using language properly. The fact of the matter is that when we describe our thoughts by speaking of our feelings, and describe our feelings by speaking of our thoughts, we are misusing these terms and confusing categories. I prefer precision and clarity to colloquial uses of language.
Jason
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 1:07 pm
I agree with Nikeyo. If a thought has value, a feeling has value and who is qualified to determine that value? It’s a matter of semantics because both are connected to disposition. Separating them is akin to separating the whole pain from suffering concept. Why bother? One element speaks to the physical, the other to the mental/emotional state. There is the source (cause) and there is the result (effect).
Maybe I’m simplifying the post, but I would say the crux of the matter is not found in a purported distinction between feelings and thoughts. I think it’s found in a single word in the last sentence of the post – intentional.
An intentional means of expression conveys a point and limits misinterpretation.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 3:19 pm
OMG, I feel like I have to go to the washroom….
OMG I think I have to go to the bathroom……..
Does the “feel” precede the “think”; isn’t it just a cause and effect? Oh sure we can niggle the grammar or semantics but isn’t this just a useless blog, so shallow in its intent?
LikeLike
February 13, 2014 at 12:06 am
In the case of having to go to the bathroom, it is both a thought and a feeling. In this case, a real physical feeling. The way we often use “feel,” however, we are not talking about a physical feeling, but emotional states.
But not everything is both a thought and a feeling. I don’t feel that grass is green. I don’t feel anything about grass. I think about grass.
Jason
LikeLike
February 14, 2014 at 2:40 pm
What do you “think” or “feel” happened when Christ asked his disciples, “But who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God” And Jesus answered him and said, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you. My Father in heaven has revealed this to you.”
Forget all the semantics – this is a stattement confirming to Peter that he knew Jesus was the Christ because God, the Father had revealed this to Peterand Peter had definite knowledge – no think – no feel, but actual knowledge as solid as a rock in your hand.
LikeLike
February 14, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Paul,
The meaning of “think” has nothing to do with the level of one’s epistemic certainty. “Think” is simply a description of what the mind does (the mind’s activity, as opposed to “feel,” which is a description of what our emotions do). That’s why the phrase “I don’t think, I KNOW” is so misguided.
While “think” may connote epistemic uncertainty in some circles and some contexts, that’s not the meaning of the word. We have plenty of words to denote various levels of certainty. “Think” is not one of them.
So even if Peter was certain that Jesus was the Christ, he still had to have the thought, “Jesus is the Christ,” in his mind, and thus it is entirely appropriate to say “Peter thinks Jesus is the Christ.” That conclusion was a function of his mind, not a function of his emotions.
Jason
LikeLike
February 15, 2014 at 9:22 am
Paul,
I read your comment 3 times to identify the connection to what I said and was unsuccessful. Regardless, when citing that passage I would not recommend reducing the necessary components of thinking/feeling from Divinely imparted information/knowledge. Your statement about Peter appears that way. What good is Divine knowledge if there is merely a mindless/emotional-less acceptance of it? “Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well, the devils also believe and tremble”
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 3:26 pm
You may say “Peter thinks Jesus is the Christ” but the fact is he had a solid confirmation – a revelation of a fact. It isn’t I think he is the Christ. It is I Know he is because I have received a revelation from God that he is the Christ. Your intellectual discussion of the meaning of words gives the impression that having not experienced it, you don’t know what revelation is.
It’s kind of like trying to describe salt to someone. Can you describe it? I don’t think you can. Spiritually speaking Peter had been given salt to taste and he knew exactly what it tasted like. Peter said he knew, and Christ pointed out that the reason he knew was because he had received revelation from God to know it. If you don’t know – if you have not received a revelation from God witnessing to you that Jesus is the Christ your religion is just belief and yes, you just think Jesus is the Christ – you don’t know. Spiritually you have not tasted salt and therefore do not know.
I think James 1:5 might help.
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 7:06 pm
I had solid revelation too; how Jesus did the events that were called miracles; what the number 666 really means and what the Name and the Mark of the Beast. What Jesus meant when he addressed the Father. As solid as Peter’s revelation. don’t you think?
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 7:14 am
Paul,
You seemed to have ignored the points I raised and just reiterated what you said before. I don’t know how much clearer I can make the issue. “Think” describes the activity of the mind (what the mind does), and has nothing to do with the level of one’s certainty regarding the proposition being entertained by their mind. So any dichotomy between “think” and “know” is misguided from the start. You are appealing to a non-technical, connotative meaning these words have in some contexts as used by some people. I don’t think that is a good bar by which to judge appropriate language. If I want to convey the notion that Peter was certain that Jesus was the Christ, I would say “Peter was certain that Jesus was the Christ.” Saying “Peter thinks Jesus is the Christ” or “Peter knows that Jesus is the Christ” do not convey anything about his degree of certitude.
Jason
LikeLike