Why is faith different?

[chron]

Ask a religionist why he holds a particular belief and the answer is often that it is a matter of faith, not reason.

My question is: Why is this acceptable? In all other areas of life, reason is accepted. Why is faith exempt?

I look forward to your thoughts.

(I've specifically kept this question as open as possible, but if I haven't been clear or precise enough, ask a question, and we'll dialog about it.)

[Thomas]

Hi Chron, and welcome to CR.

In Catholic doctrine, faith and reason go hand in hand ... but as the core of faith is the gnosis of a Mystery, something that surpasses all understanding, but one should never accede in faith to something that seems fundamentally unreasonable.

On the other hand, I have heard on more than one occasion scientists pursue a line of reasoning, purely on their faith in where the answer might be found. And indeed many scientific hypotheses are held 'in good faith' because reason suggests that's where the answer lies.

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by chron

Ask a religionist why he holds a particular belief and the answer is often that it is a matter of faith, not reason.

My question is: Why is this acceptable? In all other areas of life, reason is accepted. Why is faith exempt?

I look forward to your thoughts.

(I've specifically kept this question as open as possible, but if I haven't been clear or precise enough, ask a question, and we'll dialog about it.)

Hi Chron and welcome to CR

Is reason, rather than faith the accepted "criterion" in all other areas of life? (i.e. an either/or and no other criteria involved). What about the arts, f'rinstance?

Snoopy.

[seattlegal]

This is probably the best I've heard it expressed:

Faith, without depending on reason for the slightest shred of justification, never contradicts reason and remains ever reasonable. Faith does not destroy reason, but fulfills it. Nevertheless, there must always remain a delicate balance between the two. Two extremes are to be avoided: credulity and skepticism; superstition and rationalism. If this balance is upset, if man relies too much on his five senses and on his reason when faith should be his teacher, then he enters into illusion. Or when, in defiance of reason, he gives the assent of his faith to a fallible authority, then too he falls into illusion. Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.
--Thomas Merton, Ascent to Truth

[Paladin]

Hello Chron, very nice to meet you.
How would you define "reason"?
I tend to agree with snoopy (as usual) but perhaps we could take this even further than his intrepid insight. We are a race of beings that tout reason and critical thinking while leading our lives according to the dictates of our feeling. Our action and non-action often reflects our desires of what we want reality to be. Just look to the uber nationalism rampant in most countries and what is it that drives marketing? we all tend to live out our stories without questioning lest we see the futility of our constructs and have to live in the unknown.
Faith does not destroy reason as Merton says (Thanks Seattlegal
it merely circumvents it. And if you become one of those troublemakers that uses critical thinking skills and applies them to your everyday life in an enlightened sort of way, why the world is bound to give you a hard time.
Sounds to me as if you might be heading there already. Way to go!

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think that beyond religion, faith is a vehicle for creating one's sense of identity and place. Faith assumes a preternatural order within which one can orient them self in terms of self and group identity. We all have "faith" in our perception of the structure and function of the apparent ordering of things and our position within the structure. That perception of place, meaning, and order doesn't come from "reason". Philosophy and reason themselves arise from what I'm describing here as faith.

Chris

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by chron

Ask a religionist why he holds a particular belief and the answer is often that it is a matter of faith, not reason.

My question is: Why is this acceptable? In all other areas of life, reason is accepted. Why is faith exempt?

I look forward to your thoughts.

(I've specifically kept this question as open as possible, but if I haven't been clear or precise enough, ask a question, and we'll dialog about it.)

Hi Chron...Welcome to CR. I don't believe this matter is so much an issue of reason vs. faith as it is about the cosmic context of the basis of the issues being examined. This thread and the article I posted yesterday on this matter might enable you to view this in such a context, local (classical) issues as compared to non-local (spiritual) issues. It all boils down to what we come to believe to be real.

Between the cracks

In examining issues of a local and observed nature, then classical scientific reason is usually needed to verify the grounding of our beliefs. When dealing with matters which originate from or are affected by non-local influences, then emotionally filtered reason must necessarily determine our grounding of beliefs. The ancients knew this, and we are only now beginning to discover this again.

flow....

[chron]

Wow, thank you all for the warm welcome.

I'm going to respond to all of you in this one post, so it may be a touch long -- we'll see.

First of all, I think definitions are in order. As I first stated, I deliberately made my query open-ended and perhaps vague, in order to invite non-knee-jerk responses. Seeing now how civilized you all are (^_^), I needn't have worried.

Faith is, as I learned it as a child, belief plus action. It is holding a belief strongly enough to act on it.

Reason is thinking logically about a thing.

These are my own working definitions, and are not in any way meant to be precisely honed, the way philosophers would expect them to be in formal dialog. Please realize that, when challenged, I may very well find myself revising them a bit here and there. This is exactly why I'm here: to explore what it is that I believe, to learn about it from others, to interact, grow, and expand what I know about the way faith and spirituality work in my life.

All that said, I'll plunge into responses.

~ ~ ~

Thomas, you say:

...one should never accede in faith to something that seems fundamentally unreasonable.

Consider the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. That, it seems, is fundamentally unreasonable to me. And it surprises me to discover that the Catholic church no longer believes in the virgin birth. Quoting from Catholic Encyclopedia, via http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm:

Modern theology adhering to the principle of historical development, and denying the possibility of any miraculous intervention in the course of history, cannot consistently admit the historical actuality of the virgin birth.

So, no beef with the Catholics, it seems. Yet my evangelical brothers and sisters insist (there's a significant word, worth considering in context with religious belief in another thread) that the virgin birth must be accepted and not questioned.

Here is the main point to me: when faith is defined as holding a belief that must be accepted and not questioned, then faith is held as against reason, in my opinion.

~ ~ ~

Snoopy, you say:

Is reason, rather than faith the accepted "criterion" in all other areas of life? (i.e. an either/or and no other criteria involved). What about the arts, f'rinstance?

You're completely correct. We go through life taking many things on faith: the internal combustion engine, for many, is a mystery, and many are content to "just trust" that whoever built the one they own knew what she was doing, etc., etc.

But I, for one, can do that precisely because, to take the engine example, I know that the way my car's engine works is explainable in terms that I could understand if I put my mind to it. If, upon probing the reasons why my car propels me down the road, I was told, "It's really just a matter of faith; you just need to trust that it works and leave it at that," then I might be, well, skeptical (another great word worth its own discussion), and not quite so willing to trust without thinking.


~ ~ ~

seattlegal, your quote from Thomas Merton is a good one. But my problem begins with Meron's first line:

Faith, without depending on reason for the slightest shred of justification, never contradicts reason and remains ever reasonable.

But it does contradict reason. I point you to the virgin birth example again.

I can hear you and others saying, "But you cannot listen to those unreasonable voices who expect you to believe -- have faith -- in an unreasonable way. Yet this is exactly my point. There are those who insist that "having faith" means accepting without questioning. My own question, rephrased, is: On what basis is it all right to ask me to do that?

~ ~ ~

Paladin, you say:

Faith does not destroy reason as Merton says . . . it merely circumvents it.

Perhaps, perhaps. But how? What do you mean by this?

~ ~ ~

Chris, I'm a touch confused by what you say. Although the insight you offer is a good one, I'm not sure that it helps to talk about how faith is used here. Of course, to be fair, I did leave things rather vague in my initial post.

~ ~ ~

flow, your thoughts are most interesting to me. I want to attempt a restatement of what you've said as my way of better grasping it. Please let me know if you think I've gotten the essence of what you're saying.

First of all, you use the terms local and non-local to mean, respectively, observable reality and spiritual. Next (and finally), you assert that (using my own terminology here) any attempt to understand spiritual things will always be colored by how we feel about the way we choose to see the world.

I fear I'm mashing up your thoughts terribly. But isn't something like this what you mean by saying:

When dealing with matters which originate from or are affected by non-local influences, then emotionally filtered reason must necessarily determine our grounding of beliefs.

Your thoughts in response to Bobby Winters are excellent. You're explaining that it is in the nature of the universe (or its the spacetime fabric) for us to not be able to comprehend the spiritual in physical terms.

Is this a fair restatement of your idea?

The Paul Davies article (Taking Science on Faith) is excellent as well.

~ ~ ~

Well, new friends, I thank you again for your thoughts.

And now, I wonder aloud, what have I learned?

Well, faith still seems to me to be acting on a belief, and not just intellectually holding an idea to be true.

And reason is all about thinking logically. That still seems good to me.

I guess I think that it's not appropriate -- ever -- to ask or expect a person to "have faith" in something without being willing to give reasons why believing something (or in something) is, well, reasonable.

flow's cosmic context argument is one I'll have to ponder for some time, probably over coffee. Doing that with the likes of you all at a local (pun intended) coffeehouse would be quite a treat for me.

chron

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I have heard on more than one occasion scientists pursue a line of reasoning, purely on their faith in where the answer might be found. And indeed many scientific hypotheses are held 'in good faith' because reason suggests that's where the answer lies.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that beyond religion, faith is a vehicle for creating one's sense of identity and place. Faith assumes a preternatural order within which one can orient them self in terms of self and group identity. We all have "faith" in our perception of the structure and function of the apparent ordering of things and our position within the structure. That perception of place, meaning, and order doesn't come from "reason". Philosophy and reason themselves arise from what I'm describing here as faith.

Originally Posted by flowperson

The ancients knew this, and we are only now beginning to discover this again.

Hello peoples,

I thought I might come up with a catch-phrase for what you all seem to be trying to say. I'm hoping it's not too early and premature to say this. I probably should wait until we've got a bit more discussion. But it seems like you're all stating a case for faith rather than a case against faith. To which I've got an irresistable urge to salute you all and say that . . .

Faith inspires us to reason. Reason inspires us to have faith.

. . . well, that's the impression I'm getting.

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Faith inspires us to reason. Reason inspires us to have faith.

. . . well, that's the impression I'm getting.

And I ...............

Just love this world where it's okay to find ourselves in agreement

- c -

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by chron

Ask a religionist why he holds a particular belief and the answer is often that it is a matter of faith, not reason.

My question is: Why is this acceptable? In all other areas of life, reason is accepted. Why is faith exempt?

I look forward to your thoughts.

(I've specifically kept this question as open as possible, but if I haven't been clear or precise enough, ask a question, and we'll dialog about it.)

Greetings Chron,
Faith precedes all knowledge; and CERTAINTY dwells in the soul.

-Br.Bruce

[chron]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Greetings Chron,
Faith precedes all knowledge; and CERTAINTY dwells in the soul.

-Br.Bruce

Thank you, Bruce. Very poetic, but it doesn't, unfortunately, help me at all in my quest to resolve the need of evangelicals to insist that I accept some things without questioning.

~ ~ ~

I'm a tad frustrated, because I posted a rather long response to the first half dozen respondents to this thread, but I believe that it hasn't shown up yet because I quoted various links from other posts and additional websites, and I've discovered that new members aren't allowed to do that. I understand that a moderator will need to approve my post before it shows up, so please be patient. I have responded; perhaps on Monday my additional thoughts and comments will be here.

All best,

chron

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by chron

Thank you, Bruce. Very poetic, but it doesn't, unfortunately, help me at all in my quest to resolve the need of evangelicals to insist that I accept some things without questioning.

~ ~ ~

chron

Hi chron and welcome,

Well, there's many a people coming from different angles here, maybe you can see it more as an overview........
If you have questions they are there for good reason.......use them.
The real answer is the one fitting with your own intention of the question.
Is it in line with your own reason to be.
Why ask an evangelical when you already know how they will respond with the answer?
- c -

[chron]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Why ask an evangelical when you already know how they will respond with the answer?
- c -

That's a very good question with a somewhat complex answer, Ciel.

I grew up as a evangelical fundamentalist, and find it hard to shake my ties with my past. Even though I "know better now," I still find it important to be able to answer this question. I'm not so much asking evangelicals literally as figuratively. I know, it's probably a lost cause . . . .

Hold on until the moderator approves my post. There are some responses and insights there that may shed light on my personal journey and how it relates to this issue.

Thanks for your thoughts, though.

chron

[bob x]

"Say what you will about the sweet mystery of faith: I find a capacity for it terrifying, and utterly vile" -- Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night