Faith & Reason Vs. Mush

[Chris]

I'm not religious but still, I find this thinking resonates.

Faith & Reason Vs. Mush

Discouraged by Cardinal Cupich’s relativistic “new paradigm” speech? Read Archbishop Charles Chaput’s muscular defense of Pope John Paul II’s 1998 encylical Fides et Ratio, which is, obviously, about the connection between faith and truth. Excerpts:

Finally, without vigorous philosophy, theology and the very life of the Church risk slipping into emotivism. In the name of being pastoral, the Church threatens to become merely indulgent, malleable, affective, and practical; in effect, anti-intellectual. This is exactly the wrong moment for that kind of mistake.

We live in a time when Christian truth is increasingly misunderstood, disdained, or simply unknown, even among baptized Catholics. Michael Polanyi would have recognized our culture’s contradictions, and its emerging shape. It’s a mix of “fierce moral scepticism [paradoxically] fired by moral indignation. Its structure is exactly the same as that of the moral inversion underlying modern totalitarianism”—a contempt for traditional morality, fused with and fueled by ferocious moralizing for social change. Rational consistency is irrelevant. Passion becomes its own justification.

At a more immediate level, the pastor of a local church must meet his people in their hearts and real lives, but also in their minds. We’re beings made for the truth. Thus a clear, appealing presentation of the faith plays a vital role in forming Christians. As a bishop, I sometimes hear from parishioners that one of their concerns with some priests has to do with the content of the homilies they hear each week. They’re happy with calls for kindness or generosity, but they also hunger for homilies that present the substance of the faith, its mysteries and doctrines, in ways that are accessible and attractive. That kind of homily isn’t easy to do. But it’s impossible to do if we don’t have a credible theology, one informed by the strong philosophical traditions of learning that are at the heart of the Church and her patrimony.

[Mister D]

“fierce moral scepticism [paradoxically] fired by moral indignation...."

So true. Accurate for some of our own members.

[Kacper]

Arguably the Christian churches in their various forms exist precisely because the malleability of scripture. The holy trinity, good works, etc etc etc divide the religion even at the highest levels of intellectual and philosophical analysis.

[pjohns]

That was an excellent article in the OP.

I would just add this (and I do not know if the archbishop would agree here, or not): Although I am certainly a Christian, I have no use--absolutely none--for a "faith" that is not predicated upon reason; "church tradition," as opposed to clear New Testament teachings; or ecclesiastical "highness" (I much prefer, in this regard, the Southern Baptists to, say, the Episcopalians).

Does this make sense to others?

[Chris]

This much makes sense to me--though not religious--that reason is shared, is social, in the sense that would apply the same logic and come to the same conclusions no matter who reasoned it out. It's sort of like science in that it shouldn't matter who does the experiment and who does the observations, the results should be the same. That criteria would steer one away from personal subjectivity and moral relativism.

[Captdon]

That was an excellent article in the OP.

I would just add this (and I do not know if the archbishop would agree here, or not): Although I am certainly a Christian, I have no use--absolutely none--for a "faith" that is not predicated upon reason; "church tradition," as opposed to clear New Testament teachings; or ecclesiastical "highness" (I much prefer, in this regard, the Southern Baptists to, say, the Episcopalians).

Does this make sense to others?

No. Faith can't be based on reason. Faith is the belief in something that can't be proven.

It may be that I am reading you wrong. Faith that there is a God is my point.

I loved that article. People can change but we can't allow populaityr to replace 2,000 years of Christianity no matter how much we dislike something. Cafeteria Christianity doesn't make sense.

[pjohns]

No. Faith can't be based on reason. Faith is the belief in something that can't be proven.

According to Dictionary.com, the second definition of "faith"--"belief that is not based on proof"--would comport very well with your view.

But Dictionary.com gives seven definitions for the word.

Definition number one comes closest to my meaning: "confidence or trust in a person or thing."

It does not say whether this "confidence or trust" may be based upon reason.

Mine is. Or else I would reject the premise out of hand. (For the record, Thomas--"Doubting Thomas"--has always been my favorite from among The Twelve.)

Note: I often watch reruns of the 1970s show, All in the Family, starring Archie and Edith Bunker. In one of these, Archie declares that religion is something that "no reasonable person would believe"--yet he embraces it. Well, that is certainly not the sort of "religion" that I would want. It requires one to suspend disbelief--which I find simply jaw-dropping.

[Chris]

I think there's a good many cases where reason is based on faith. The very idea that reason, that is, logic, will result in truths is a major one. The Enlightenment put a great deal of faith in reason, the individual, and so on. Socialism puts a great deal of faith is...well, something. Science puts faith in the scientific method. We put faith in the past that the sun will rise, that tomorrow will be a better day, or worse, depending on experience. We put a lot of faith in other people. --Maybe I'm generalizing the meaning of faith too much. But I do think anything we think based on reason is based first of faith.

[kilgram]

I'm not religious but still, I find this thinking resonates.

Faith & Reason Vs. Mush

I am not racist but... I am not homophobe but... I am not religious but...

I usually run away when somebody starts something with that words...

And, starting by Christian truth, the rest of the reasonament goes directly to pure faith and no logical or reasonal thinking in the rest of the text. It assumes from the beginning that they have the truth, they are correct. There is no reason there, only faith. And as always have been told, faith and reason are incompatible. Because, to have faith, you need to put apart the reason and blindly believe in that, even if the facts prove you wrong. And that is not rational, like the rest of the text.

And plus, scepticism looks like that sales manager sees as something bad. Obviously, he is a bishop, his job is sell his product, and his product is religion. And a good part of the text is already addressed to the ones that he has obviously sold its product. With this text is imposssible to win new clients.

[Chris]

I am not racist but... I am not homophobe but... I am not religious but...

I usually run away when somebody starts something with that words...

And, starting by Christian truth, the rest of the reasonament goes directly to pure faith and no logical or reasonal thinking in the rest of the text. It assumes from the beginning that they have the truth, they are correct. There is no reason there, only faith. And as always have been told, faith and reason are incompatible. Because, to have faith, you need to put apart the reason and blindly believe in that, even if the facts prove you wrong. And that is not rational, like the rest of the text.

And plus, scepticism looks like that sales manager sees as something bad. Obviously, he is a bishop, his job is sell his product, and his product is religion. And a good part of the text is already addressed to the ones that he has obviously sold its product. With this text is imposssible to win new clients.

As an agnostic atheist I have trouble with the premise, that is, whether we can know God. I think not so choose not have faith but have no argument with anyone who chooses faith, and find that most who choose to believe are completely reasonable from that point.



So how is your choice to not have faith reasonable? --And, no, arguments agaist faith or those with faith do not by default make your lack of faith reasonable.



Doubt is a part of faith, I think.