_________________________________________
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.”
AGREE ~ DISAGREE ??
Exploring new findings from science about our cosmos and the significance of these findings to our understandings of the Creator and his purpose for creating. Rethinking Biblical Theology in light of many new scientific insights. Addressing difficult questions being asked by skeptics today ... e.g. the Problem of Evil, the insignificance of man in the cosmos, the apparent randomness of events, etc. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein
8 comments:
It's actually a quotation from Martin Luther, in the context of his argument for fideism. Luther was arguing that because reason plays no part in coming to faith (in his view) and because using one's reason can undermine faith, it is therefore the enemy of faith.
Since I don't have a theological dog in this fight (that is, in whether fideism is the appropriate view), I can't speak to that aspect. But yes, to judge from my experience with deconversions (mostly on Internet Infidels), the free exercise of reason is an enemy of faith.
Well speaking for myself it is my reason which seems to prevent me from having "faith".
- - -
That is one scary sign!
Psi
I can't speak to the theological perspective rbh talks about, but my reason has been the greatest tool in my life for expanding and increasing my faith, and I disagree strongly with the quote.
Psi: That is one scary sign!
Yes, and I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
My own experience has been much like Damian's. But my reasoned faith has, so far, proven unassailable by science and rationalism. That might not be true if I were holding on to one of the many forms of rigid fundamentalism. Which leads to this question:
RBH, the objects of de-conversion to which you refer, what "brand" of Christian faith did they profess before their faith was destroyed by reason? Were they free-thinking, open-minded, friends of science? or were they group-thinking, closed-minded, enemies of science? Did they accept a non-literal approach to the Scripture, or were they strict literalists?
My contention is that rigid, literalist fundamentalism is indeed threatened by reason. Thus are fundamentalists typically enjoined not to think. Of that kind of faith, reason certainly is a great, if not the greatest enemy. But Christians who think deeply, who enthusiastically engage with scientific discovery, who reject wooden literalism, such believers have a faith which, like Damian's, grows with the application of reason.
Just two words which elevate you further still in my (sometimes humble) opinion;
". . . so far. . ."
- - -
I haven't seen any convincing evidence of the supernatural, so far.
:-)
Cliff asked
RBH, the objects of de-conversion to which you refer, what "brand" of Christian faith did they profess before their faith was destroyed by reason? Were they free-thinking, open-minded, friends of science? or were they group-thinking, closed-minded, enemies of science? Did they accept a non-literal approach to the Scripture, or were they strict literalists?
Mainly out of pretty fundamentalist literalist traditions, usually YECs. They were by no means the majority of fundamentalists we'd get on Infidels -- most who appeared there were drive-by posters who hit and ran. Very few actually deconverted, though some shifted to less literalist readings. Those few who actually deconverted tended to be of relatively high intelligence (judging from their verbal behavior) who stuck around to participate in the interchange. And it could take years -- literally. One in particular I think of spent on the order of five years debating, discussing, and arguing before his eventual conclusion that he had become faith-free.
The one trait that seemed to differentiate them from the other fundamentalist theists we got was sustained curiosity about unbelievers and unbelief. Long-term exposure to nonbelievers who were evidently not tools of Satan, who were fully engaged human beings, seemed to be the medicine they needed. :)
Good comment, RBH.
Of course that line separating belief from non-belief leaks in both directions. Many atheists who convert to faith are, no doubt, influenced by their discovery that not all believers are wide-eyed, rabid, science-hating crazies.
We would all do well to recognize that the gulf separating believers from non-believers is narrow indeed. We are all human beings, capable of decency and mutual respect. One hope I have is that here, at OutsideTheBox, believers are being exposed to atheists who are considerate, thoughtful, intelligent, and engaged ... and vice versa.
Thus are fundamentalists typically enjoined not to think.
I disagree. I think fundamentalists are typically enjoined vigorously to think. But they are also enjoined vigorously as to which sources of information from which they should draw.
It's a rigged game. The community controls the evidence that's allowed in, and also frames the language in which the debate will take place. The individual is encouraged to think as rigorously as possible within these constraints and, lo and behold, ends up being very convinced that what the community believes is correct.
Post a Comment