lay follower
The instrument of faith is of a very delicate nature. Faith is choosing to accept a 'thing' without knowing the fundamental pieces are that constitute said thing. Imagine the steps of growth of a human being. Before one becomes a child it is first a baby. If you meet a child, it is then reasonable to know for a fact that at some point in time they were once a baby. All human beings develop in said fashion. When you met a child it is by reason that you are able to determine that it was first a baby. Mentioning the dynamics of how it is that reason operates is essential for comparing and contrasting faith with reason.
The fundamental parts that supply evidence for a 'thing' are systematic sequences of states that represent the 'thing' in particular points in time. Yet when it comes to the instrument of faith, a primary consequence of this instrument is that the arrangement of states of evidence is destructive to the very instrument of faith itself. Imagine a magic show, one of the important features to a magic trick is that the observer does not know how it is done. A trick is preformed that conceals the previous states of becoming or arriving to said 'thing.' Then the observer does not know how it is that they witnessed said 'thing' or state arrive. In going about collecting and discovering the evidence of a magic trick two things occur: 1. The trick is ruined to the observer or 2. The trick is found useful and interesting. Yet with faith, in order to ensure that the instrument remains intact, the sequence of states that are the evidence must remain hidden or logically unable to be systematically discovered.
An important feature of faith is that it can serve as a tremendous emotional stability. The two potential resulting consequences of faith being: ignorance or absolute knowledge. These two can yield very different outcomes. Although the two different outcomes result in two separate conclusions, that does not always mean that those separate conclusions are diametrically different within their composition. Considering this conclusion, can one then say with firm confidence which resulting condition is the best to arrive at?
Which magician is the most preferred to strive toward? The magician that reveals his secrets or the one who does not? The one who has confidence in his faith regardless of whether all the secrets are revealed or the one who hides behind his curtain? Ultimately ensuring that faith maintains its ability to serve as an instrument that can instill emotion becomes the final conclusion. Is it dangerous to make use of the logical states to arrive at a solid logical point or is it better to incorporate the invisible strength of the supporting beams of faith? Which conclusion yields the most aesthetically pleasing result? An age old question for the trillionth time.
Cheers!
周培森