After I wrote the previous comment, I had made up my mind from perusing your blog that you must be a Catholic after all (due to your deep interest in Franciscans), so I was surprised to see your comment here that you’re a Protestant. I tend to agree with you on your reading of St. Paul, but Martin Luther (and others) would vehemently disagree. It always seemed to me that Luther and the Church were talking past each other. Both agree that man is saved through grace alone and Luther, in claiming Paul’s authority for sola fide, seemed to be looking at Paul’s rejection of the Law, not all works. (Paul railed against immorality in First Corinthians, at the very least.)

Also, I was sure you were more nuanced than that. Forgive me if I sounded critical. I only commented on it because it’s not unknown for people to think that it’s not possible to believe one thing and do another. Plato apparently thought that (and it’s hard to be in better company). Aristotle’s refutation (which I agree with) was essentially that we can observe through introspection that we do sometimes believe something and yet still act contrary to our beliefs. I think this is due to our emotions, so that it’s quite possible to believe that A is better than B (rationally) and yet still want to do B more than A.

Andrew, my husband is an analytic philosopher as well. I’m Protestant with Catholic leanings.

When it comes to beliefs and actions, I think I’m a bit more nuanced than I let on.

That is, I know people can believe one thing and act a different way.

What I’m critiquing in theology is that people are taught “you need to believe that Jesus is God and Savior” without being taught “and believing includes action, not just thought.”

If what I’ve read is correct, the first Christians already knew the latter part. As Paul says, we still do what we hate, we don’t fully live out our beliefs. But we try, just as smokers try to cut back on cigarettes or give them up periodically based on the belief that it’s bad, though they don’t have the strength to quit.

Jon, I believe the will is defined by the conscious mind, but not wholly by the rational desires. It is influenced by both rational and irrational impulses. I used Socrates’ metaphor of the chariot in my earlier post. The will is the charioteer with the bad horse representing our irrational and immoral desires and the good horse representing our rational and moral desires. (I believe the rational and the moral are in complete harmony, unlike some philosophers.) In Socrates’ formulation, the gods are distinguished from us because they have two good horses.

As for “true belief,” I was using Mrs. Micah’s formulation, i.e. a belief that is actually held, not one that is necessarily actually true. (This is a sloppy formulation, though. It does mean that someone can “truly believe” they can fly, even though they can’t. Perhaps we should use the term “actual belief” to avoid confusion.) Personally, I disagree with Mrs. Micah. I don’t think people can have beliefs without being aware of them. I.e. I don’t think the man who believes that he ought not to smoke, but smokes anyway actually believes that he ought to smoke. I think his actual belief is the one he consciously holds; it’s just that his will is weak. (He is “akratic” or incontinent to use the terms philosophers tend to use, following Aristotle.) There is nothing wrong with Mrs. Micah’s perspective. Economists tend to adopt this perspective, that we can tell people’s actual utility functions by their behaviors, not by what they say they want. I regard this as a useful fiction, since economists are more interested in predicting future behavior than they are in the philosophy.

Like Mrs. Micah, I too have an addictive personality, so I have a great deal of regrettable personal experience with akrasia. (For example, I am a smoker, a relic of my juvenile delinquent past, even though I know that I ought to quit smoking.) One of my addictions is analytical philosophy, which is why I had to ask about Mrs. Micah’s theology.

I would say that if he truly believes it, his actions will reflect it–namely he’ll try to fly. Which probably means someone should keep an eye on him.

I do see people acting on what they know they shouldn’t be doing and don’t “want” to do. It’s a valid point.

But I also think that people haven’t taught enough in Christianity that beliefs are even supposed to be followed by actions. They’re too afraid of works without seeing that works are the necessary result of faith (even if it’s not a completely perfect transformation yet). But my argument is more elegant.

It all started when I was wondering where the teachings of Jesus fit into the creeds.

I’m hoping to turn it into a book and also a Sunday School curriculum. Because if you want to change church thought, infiltrate the Sunday School!

Do you feel that the will is defined by your rational desires, or that the will is a separate entity from your conscious mind and is influenced by rational and irrational desires as well as physical realities?

Also, by “true belief” do you mean a belief that you actually hold and don’t just state, or a belief that is true? Is one possible without the other? For instance, do you think it’s possible for a person to *truly believe* that he can fly, only to find out that he can’t?

Interesting discussion, hope I’m not intruding

I am afraid of being a mom as well. I always said that if I couldn’t be half as good a mother as my mom, I shouldn’t even think about it.