Jump to content


Photo

On Faith & Reason


165 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:37 AM

I don't know if we'll have much to debate on this topic, but there certainly is a lot to discuss and learn about.

In Christianity Saint Thomas Aquinas joined philosophy and theology, and today Catholics still feel that these separate roads to knowledge compliment each other.

The relationship between faith and reason was proclaimed in the first Vatican council:

First, reason alone is not sufficient to guide men: they need Revelation; we must carefully distinguish the truths known by reason from higher truths (mysteries) known by Revelation.

Secondly, reason and Revelation, though distinct, are not opposed to each other.

Thirdly, faith preserves reason from error; reason should do service in the cause of faith.

Fourthly, this service is rendered in three ways:

reason should prepare the minds of men to receive the Faith by proving the truths which faith presupposes (praeambula fidei);
reason should explain and develop the truths of Faith and should propose them in scientific form;
reason should defend the truths revealed by Almighty God.


The church always seems touchy about this relationship - declaring in the second proclamation and revelation are NOT opposed to each other.

Here's Pope John Paul II's letter to the Bishops on the relationship between faith and reason.

n the wake of these cultural shifts, some philosophers have abandoned the search for truth in itself and made their sole aim the attainment of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to know the truth and to seek the absolute.

48. This rapid survey of the history of philosophy, then, reveals a growing separation between faith and philosophical reason. Yet closer scrutiny shows that even in the philosophical thinking of those who helped drive faith and reason further apart there are found at times precious and seminal insights which, if pursued and developed with mind and heart rightly tuned, can lead to the discovery of truth's way. Such insights are found, for instance, in penetrating analyses of perception and experience, of the imaginary and the unconscious, of personhood and intersubjectivity, of freedom and values, of time and history. The theme of death as well can become for all thinkers an incisive appeal to seek within themselves the true meaning of their own life. But this does not mean that the link between faith and reason as it now stands does not need to be carefully examined, because each without the other is impoverished and enfeebled. Deprived of what Revelation offers, reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal. Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.


Vatican.va

The Church hates to deny reason and science (Pope John Paul II was an evolutionist, for example) however there still needs to be room for the unreasonable in their theology. So they find ways for faith and reason to co-exist, even while tacitly acknowledging the separation between them.

I believe that these roads to knowledge can co-exist, inasmuch as philosophy and science will always have dark corners that can't be answered by reason alone. ( What came before the big bang ? And before that ? etc. )

Thoughts ?


You can see in

#2 Shwa

Shwa

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Da Shwa
  • Interests:Sports, Music, Books, Movies

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:35 AM

I think Aquinas was the one of the most brilliant minds of his time, working with the defintions of his time. Would he see things in a different light today, even with his Catholic faith intact? Would Kant?

Because we need to define faith for these propositions to be workable in modern times and the articles of public religion must be thoroughly stripped away, even though there is still a place for personal religion or spirituality.

Thus "Faith" becomes "faith" with a more supple, inclusive defintion that addresses such human qualities as intuition and hypothesis.

If an institution wants to continue a millennium old experiment, I have no quarrel with that except in instances where it is decreed Truth and Law. I am sure Copernicus and Galilieo would have agreed.

#3 Oleg Bach

Oleg Bach

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lower east side TO

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:57 AM

Those that came after Christ - attempted to create a universal (polical) religion...which was NOT what Christ was about - Christainity was not about submission to the state but the defying of the state...any Christian prophet what suggests submission and compliance to the state is a traitor to Christ the only king. Any one or any religion that creates an atmosphere of fear and threat is political in nature - which the Catholic faith is.

#4 bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004

    Senior Mocker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA! USA! USA!

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:06 AM

...any Christian prophet what suggests submission and compliance to the state is a traitor to Christ the only king.


Christ is not the only king...we have Budweiser, King of Beers....B.B. King...Billy Jean King....and Elvis, The King. So there....
Economics trumps Virtue.
"Access to a wait list is not Access to healthcare" - Chief Justice Beverly McLauchlin

#5 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:16 AM

Those that came after Christ - attempted to create a universal (polical) religion...which was NOT what Christ was about - Christainity was not about submission to the state but the defying of the state...any Christian prophet what suggests submission and compliance to the state is a traitor to Christ the only king. Any one or any religion that creates an atmosphere of fear and threat is political in nature - which the Catholic faith is.


The idea the Christianity was about defying the state isn't exactly right. They defied the state when it demanded that they repudiate Christianity and demanded that they deny their conscience.

I think Romans addressed the question of following the laws of the state but I'm not a scholar on such things.

#6 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:20 AM

I think Aquinas was the one of the most brilliant minds of his time, working with the defintions of his time. Would he see things in a different light today, even with his Catholic faith intact? Would Kant?


But what has changed ? Has humanity changed ? Or has human knowledge changed ?

I would say that the latter has changed - and as it changed it encroaches on matters of faith. What has been the result ? The Catholic church for one has surrendered areas of dogma (albeit reluctantly) to reason.

Thus "Faith" becomes "faith" with a more supple, inclusive defintion that addresses such human qualities as intuition and hypothesis.


I suppose that's true, but for those who believe their articles of faith are no less true than before.

If an institution wants to continue a millennium old experiment, I have no quarrel with that except in instances where it is decreed Truth and Law. I am sure Copernicus and Galilieo would have agreed.


Do you have examples of these instances ?

Church and state, in the west, have worked these things out... via productive dialogues... and wars.

#7 Sir Bandelot

Sir Bandelot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,099 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2011 - 08:20 AM

A person having faith does not require a logical proof. Faith is a firm belief, even when reason and facts dictate otherwise.

To the purely rational thinker, faith seems illogical and is a waste of time. But the power of faith must not be discounted. Faith provides a mechanism that goes beyond the boundaries of reason, and this can be very powerful. Human beings empowered with faith can sometimes achieve seemingly super-human results. Faith overcomes fear of limitations, because it removes fear of death.

Edited by Sir Bandelot, 29 September 2011 - 08:20 AM.


#8 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 29 September 2011 - 08:36 AM

A person having faith does not require a logical proof. Faith is a firm belief, even when reason and facts dictate otherwise.

To the purely rational thinker, faith seems illogical and is a waste of time. But the power of faith must not be discounted. Faith provides a mechanism that goes beyond the boundaries of reason, and this can be very powerful. Human beings empowered with faith can sometimes achieve seemingly super-human results. Faith overcomes fear of limitations, because it removes fear of death.


Your post makes me think of something else: faith in science, and in scientific knowledge. Science can only tell us very little about the known universe, however it continues because we believe in it. It has helped us.

Can we prove it ? Is it a known fact that we're "better" than we would have been ?

Some would say not; Jared Diamond, for example, has recently posted a condemnation of agriculture ("The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race") which is arguably the oldest civilizing technology we have.

#9 GostHacked

GostHacked

    Watching you watching me.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,347 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON Canada

Posted 29 September 2011 - 09:09 AM

Your post makes me think of something else: faith in science, and in scientific knowledge. Science can only tell us very little about the known universe, however it continues because we believe in it. It has helped us.


Science is telling us more and more about the universe we live in. We believe (faith) in science, because it has garnered repeatable results which leads to knowledge. So putting faith in science can seem logical, only because science has been able to produce results, or disprove some theory. The results of science precede the faith in science, because science has reasoning. Faith in the supernatural is simply faith without reason or any kind of logic.

I like to use the scenario from South Park about the Underpants Gnomes.
Step 1 - Collect underpants
Step 2 - ?
Step 3 - Profit.

Logic and reasoning asks, well what is #2? Faith says, well #1 is collecting the underpants, *points to #2" then says #3 is profit. Yeah but what is number #2?

Logic also dictates that if we don't know something, that does not mean we won't find the answer, so the question remains open until it can be validated or tossed to the curb. I have faith in science, because it has continually filled in the gaps, and continues to fill in those gaps. Then we reach the point of knowledge when those gaps are filled.

Faith in the supernatural does not require any logic, or reasoning, because there is no way to work logic or reasoning in when dealing with the supernatural.

So, I'll put my faith in science, because it has been able to prove itself through the ages by repeatable tests with constant and consistent results. I can count on science to keep giving results. Science has a track record of giving results that can be independently verified.

I cannot put faith in the divine, or supernatural, because there is no logic or reasoning. Does one need logic or reasoning to believe and have faith in the divine? The answer is no.
Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser
ohm on soundcloud.com

#10 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 29 September 2011 - 09:26 AM

But as John Paul II points out, there will always be shortcomings in a pure reason approach, when considering the big questions. Of course the church can't conceive of nihilism but can people live that way ? Many of them don't, I suspect, because the big questions are frightening.

#11 Shwa

Shwa

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Da Shwa
  • Interests:Sports, Music, Books, Movies

Posted 29 September 2011 - 10:28 AM

But what has changed ? Has humanity changed ? Or has human knowledge changed ?


Reason has changed; faith - in the religious sense - remains the same. Reason has increased our collective knowledge of the universe, religious faith has not.

I would say that the latter has changed - and as it changed it encroaches on matters of faith. What has been the result ? The Catholic church for one has surrendered areas of dogma (albeit reluctantly) to reason.


I think knowledge has remained the same, but what we do with it - how we use it to reason, has changed quite a bit as evidenced by the philosophical enquiries about it over the past few centuries since it was liberated from the confines of dogma. In fact, the old dogma has been found to be unreasonable.

I suppose that's true, but for those who believe their articles of faith are no less true than before.


Before what? Are you equating the mechanism - let's say 'feelings' - of your faith to the same content as, say, someone in the 13th century? The articles of faith are, so it seems to me, being de-institutionalized because self-perpetuating archaic institutions based on faith are seen to be unreasonable.

Do you have examples of these instances ?


Here are some examples of the great experiments over the centuries.

Church and state, in the west, have worked these things out... via productive dialogues... and wars.


Are they fully worked out though? The concept of political power seems to have been settled over the past two centuries. But is that all there is?

#12 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 29 September 2011 - 10:37 AM

Reason has changed; faith - in the religious sense - remains the same. Reason has increased our collective knowledge of the universe, religious faith has not.


Quibble #1: Remains to be seen if knowing such things makes people happier, more fulfilled, etc.

I think knowledge has remained the same, but what we do with it - how we use it to reason, has changed quite a bit as evidenced by the philosophical enquiries about it over the past few centuries since it was liberated from the confines of dogma. In fact, the old dogma has been found to be unreasonable.


Quibble #2: Knowledge has increased.

Before what? Are you equating the mechanism - let's say 'feelings' - of your faith to the same content as, say, someone in the 13th century? The articles of faith are, so it seems to me, being de-institutionalized because self-perpetuating archaic institutions based on faith are seen to be unreasonable.


Quibble #3: De-institutionalizing the articles of faith. What is that ?

As for why faith is the same for us as for our middle aged predecessors, a truth is a truth right ?

Here are some examples of the great experiments over the centuries.


Ok, I get it now.

Are they fully worked out though? The concept of political power seems to have been settled over the past two centuries. But is that all there is?


They are not fully worked out. And the idea of institutions (which used to comprise church and state, separately) are under challenge from other sources... the masses, maybe...

#13 TimG

TimG

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,619 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2011 - 10:56 AM

Religion seeks to provide answers to the "Why" questions.

Science seeks to provide answers to the "How" questions.

#14 Oleg Bach

Oleg Bach

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lower east side TO

Posted 29 September 2011 - 12:12 PM

Faith AND reason ? The REASON some parts of humanity deny or have no faith in God is usually because religion has created such a complex spider web of ideas which contain such a variety of contradictory reasonings - that it makes the god concept appear unreasonable. It is the sheer and scandalous complexity that generates sceptics and reasonably so!


Keep it simple stupid ---------- Understand that the whole concept of God and YOU is utterly simplistic. There is YOU - and YOU live within creation - all around you is God manifested in the phyisical world - absolutely everything on earth and every thing beyond into the great endless stretch of eternity.

So that is not difficult reasoning. You and IT. As for all religion..."complexity is the santuary of scoundrels" - I would say that - that sums it up in full! It is reasonable that skeptics find religion un-reasonable and contradictory...it is because skeptics and say what we call questioning atheists - question religion - not God.


So in my observation faith is simplistic...and resonable if kept simple - that we exist and this existance is proof that we are a creation of sorts. When you take faith and claim through religion that say the mother of Christ was a virgin...THAT is unreasonable God does not or needs not deal in supposed miracles - why would he or it attempt to convince his own creations of his fatherly existance by using artifice - artifice is the domain of political science.

#15 Sir Bandelot

Sir Bandelot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,099 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2011 - 01:52 PM

Reason has changed; faith - in the religious sense - remains the same. Reason has increased our collective knowledge of the universe, religious faith has not.

But one has to really grasp the point of the conservative mindset. It is NOT about progress. It is in fact a resistance to progress. Certain kinds of progress, anyway. And it does so intentionally.



Reply to this topic