No harm done. I just wanted to make that clarification.
I was thinking about this thread and it dawned on me. I've left out an important point worth noting in my opinion.
I've said it before elsewhere here on Redscape but it bears repeating. I believe that many of the faith traditions and their truth claims are reasonable or rational. That will of course strike you as unacceptable but the point I should have included in the thread is this....
Let's take Christians, for example. The Christian truth claims are rational or better, reasonable. I can offer explanations to try and explain them and hopefully those reasons come across in such a way that another person who does not hold them to be true, at the very least, is able to listen to the rational put forward and hopefully be challenged to, at the very least, strengthen their own position, or, consider the points in an honest way that makes sense for them.
But let me be clear, at some point, the Christian must leap from the cliff of rationality. That's when experience takes over. Reduce that experience to emotions or sinaps firing off in the brain if you like, but an experience takes place that seems to merge the reasonableness of the truth claim with a euphoric encounter with the wholly other. It's at this point where explanation and justification drop off and the believer is simply in a free fall of acceptance. No argument, no use of logic, no "proof" as we've discussed here is possible.
In the end, the believer hangs his/her hat on faith. That's it. This faith, in the words of Anselm, is always seeking understanding but it is faith and reason does indeed drop off in order to make that leap.
I left this piece out and I really shouldn't have. It's absolutely central to the conversation. That's what makes faith, faith.
Now, I believe the relationship between faith and reason is a spectrum. When there is no balance between the two, we see very clear patterns emerge, at least from a believer's perspective.
On the one extreme, let's call it the right side of the spectrum, is faith without reason. This is a scary realm for me. This position on the spectrum could be characterized by blind faith or radical fundamentalism. My way or the highway. Either believe what I believe or I will eliminate you. Here, reason is absent.
As you move on the spectrum closer toward the fulcrum lets say, you come across all kinds of shades of fundamentalism. Again, these various flavors of fundamentalism can look very different but all share a suspicion of reason to some degree.
On the other extreme of the spectrum of the relationship, we find reason devoid of any semblance of faith. It's here we have pure atheism.
As you move again toward the center of the fulcrum [again, the fulcrum from a believers' perspective] you find agnosticism which we've already discussed. Not an agnostic that has embraced faith but someone who is open to the possibility that at some point in the future there may be sufficient evidence or an experience of some kind that would lead them to a kind of belief though doubting this possibility all the while perhaps.
A bit further and we find deists. At this stage you discover a class of folks who have adopted an element of faith into their word view. Yet, this group will always insist that the pursuit of science and knowledge is absolutely mandatory in attempting to explain what the universe or creator has accomplished.
Now there are many shades of these groups as you either move toward the center of the fulcrum, again, the fulcrum of a healthy balance between faith and reason, or away from it. Suffice it to say, an "honest" (Danivon's term which I really like) or healthy believer lets say, is one who attempts as best s/he can to keep the two phenomena in balance. One without the other does not work. The two are paired together, inform one another and complement each other, always challenging the other to bring out the best that both realities afford.
My faith must be rational or reasonable or I need to walk away from it. My faith needs to undergo the rigors of testing that science would demand from it. I can't be afraid of that testing or run from it or claim that scientific evidence is somehow flawed or rigged as a justification to continue holding on to my beliefs.
Faith must embrace all knowledge that comes to us through science. And science or reason, again, in my view, must remain open to mystery. When that can happen, I believe we end up with healthy or honest societies who reflect what's best about our human condition.
All of this takes honesty. I keep going back to this notion. And a respect and openness to the other.
Anyway Freeman, I've been thinking about this thread like I said and wanted to add this important bit about faith.
Faith is not reason and reason is not faith but faith can be reasonable up to a leaping off point and reason can always remain open to possibility of a wholly other, no matter the intensity of doubt.
Neither are obligated to do so, but when there is harmony in the relationship between the two, we seem to get the best results for all stakeholders.
I was thinking about this thread and it dawned on me. I've left out an important point worth noting in my opinion.
I've said it before elsewhere here on Redscape but it bears repeating. I believe that many of the faith traditions and their truth claims are reasonable or rational. That will of course strike you as unacceptable but the point I should have included in the thread is this....
Let's take Christians, for example. The Christian truth claims are rational or better, reasonable. I can offer explanations to try and explain them and hopefully those reasons come across in such a way that another person who does not hold them to be true, at the very least, is able to listen to the rational put forward and hopefully be challenged to, at the very least, strengthen their own position, or, consider the points in an honest way that makes sense for them.
But let me be clear, at some point, the Christian must leap from the cliff of rationality. That's when experience takes over. Reduce that experience to emotions or sinaps firing off in the brain if you like, but an experience takes place that seems to merge the reasonableness of the truth claim with a euphoric encounter with the wholly other. It's at this point where explanation and justification drop off and the believer is simply in a free fall of acceptance. No argument, no use of logic, no "proof" as we've discussed here is possible.
In the end, the believer hangs his/her hat on faith. That's it. This faith, in the words of Anselm, is always seeking understanding but it is faith and reason does indeed drop off in order to make that leap.
I left this piece out and I really shouldn't have. It's absolutely central to the conversation. That's what makes faith, faith.
Now, I believe the relationship between faith and reason is a spectrum. When there is no balance between the two, we see very clear patterns emerge, at least from a believer's perspective.
On the one extreme, let's call it the right side of the spectrum, is faith without reason. This is a scary realm for me. This position on the spectrum could be characterized by blind faith or radical fundamentalism. My way or the highway. Either believe what I believe or I will eliminate you. Here, reason is absent.
As you move on the spectrum closer toward the fulcrum lets say, you come across all kinds of shades of fundamentalism. Again, these various flavors of fundamentalism can look very different but all share a suspicion of reason to some degree.
On the other extreme of the spectrum of the relationship, we find reason devoid of any semblance of faith. It's here we have pure atheism.
As you move again toward the center of the fulcrum [again, the fulcrum from a believers' perspective] you find agnosticism which we've already discussed. Not an agnostic that has embraced faith but someone who is open to the possibility that at some point in the future there may be sufficient evidence or an experience of some kind that would lead them to a kind of belief though doubting this possibility all the while perhaps.
A bit further and we find deists. At this stage you discover a class of folks who have adopted an element of faith into their word view. Yet, this group will always insist that the pursuit of science and knowledge is absolutely mandatory in attempting to explain what the universe or creator has accomplished.
Now there are many shades of these groups as you either move toward the center of the fulcrum, again, the fulcrum of a healthy balance between faith and reason, or away from it. Suffice it to say, an "honest" (Danivon's term which I really like) or healthy believer lets say, is one who attempts as best s/he can to keep the two phenomena in balance. One without the other does not work. The two are paired together, inform one another and complement each other, always challenging the other to bring out the best that both realities afford.
My faith must be rational or reasonable or I need to walk away from it. My faith needs to undergo the rigors of testing that science would demand from it. I can't be afraid of that testing or run from it or claim that scientific evidence is somehow flawed or rigged as a justification to continue holding on to my beliefs.
Faith must embrace all knowledge that comes to us through science. And science or reason, again, in my view, must remain open to mystery. When that can happen, I believe we end up with healthy or honest societies who reflect what's best about our human condition.
All of this takes honesty. I keep going back to this notion. And a respect and openness to the other.
Anyway Freeman, I've been thinking about this thread like I said and wanted to add this important bit about faith.
Faith is not reason and reason is not faith but faith can be reasonable up to a leaping off point and reason can always remain open to possibility of a wholly other, no matter the intensity of doubt.
Neither are obligated to do so, but when there is harmony in the relationship between the two, we seem to get the best results for all stakeholders.