next »

[husqvarna]

Arete1, I just read your thread on logic courses (which I appreciated very much)... after reading that, though, I must say I'm disappointed with your response to my post.  I think I'll just leave you hanging with that comment, inadequate as it is.  I would continue to say, though, that you're drawing connections and making assertions about what I've said without wrestling very much with my posts.  I think a lot of your characterizations of my "rhetoric" stem from your own understanding of religion rather than mine.

[invinoveritas]

hvernon,

I appreciate your replies after I somewhat relentlessly assessed your position on this topic.  And I must say that its refreshing to hear your reaction to my criticism of religious faith rather than some that I've heard in the past....

On the negative side, I do think it quite strange how you assume that you could have 'helped me' more.  Thanks for the sympathy, but I am not in need of help.  Perhaps I have some blinders on because I fail to see how you have helped anyone 'understand the structure of inquiry'...as I think I pointed out before, you seem to have a confused understanding of the structure of inquiry.  You clearly stated that you think faith is a valid cognitive procedure, but you never explained how this is possible.  I think you are being a bit timid here because you don't want to state your position explicitly (perhaps because you know that it is not plausible?).

I can tell that you are an intelligent person, yet you hesitate to say what you really think.  Why?

As far as lashing out at science goes, you seem to respect scientific inquiry and I get that.  But why do you dismiss reason at the critical moments?  Is it because reason tells you something that you don't want to believe?  How, exactly, do you distinguish between when reason is the proper guide and when it is not?  Does reason let you know?  Please don't tell me that faith decides this for you....

In a roundabout way, you declared that science oversteps its bounds "in foreign lands".  Now, it is clear from the context of your statement that religion is this foreign land and science oversteps its bounds when it says anything about religion.  This is where I thought you were dead wrong and I called you out on it.  Nothing personal of course, but if you really believe this, I think you are mistaken.

I'm glad you liked my logic thread and I appreciate your comment.  I don't see why my statements here are a cause for disappointment though.  I admit I have been quite concise in my comments here....I just don't have the time to address everything in complete detail (the topic we have engaged in here could easily become a dissertation....or a few!). 

I think I should end with a comment on your last sentence because I think it is an important point.  Yes....we all have our 'own' understandings of religion and mine is certainly not the same as yours.  I think I am of a minority opinion that there is a real world out there that we are capable of understanding.  Religion is part of that world.  We can understand it in different ways, but ultimately there are objective facts about how things really are.  We can understand things differently, but at the end of the day there is fact and there is fiction.  Some understandings correspond to the facts and some do not.  Do you not agree?

[husqvarna]

On the negative side, I do think it quite strange how you assume that you could have 'helped me' more.  Thanks for the sympathy, but I am not in need of help. 

I simply mean to help you understand what theological inquiry entails (maybe you have a problem with this too).  I wasn't trying to make you "see the light" on any particular theological truth, though, if that was what you were thinking.  Just like you might "help" me by explaining a few things about philosophical inquiry... because I'm relatively ignorant on these things.

You clearly stated that you think faith is a valid cognitive procedure, but you never explained how this is possible.  I think you are being a bit timid here because you don't want to state your position explicitly (perhaps because you know that it is not plausible?).

I think it's more that this conversation could go on and on, and if you aren't accepting a word I say then I'd rather give you a place to start and leave it at that for you or anyone else who might be interested in reading up on your own.  You're welcome to do the same for me- I'd be happy to look into your assertions about faith, but if I'm going to do so I need something more than you've given me.

I can tell that you are an intelligent person, yet you hesitate to say what you really think.  Why?

Thanks, same to you!  (on the intelligence... you've said a little more clearly what you really think)  As I've said above, I just don't see the point in getting into what could be a long conversation.  In addition, theologians differ on these matters, and as I'm of rather ecumenical inclinations, I'd rather not settle into just one school of thought.  Perhaps that's why I haven't really gone deeply into what I think.

But why do you dismiss reason at the critical moments?  Is it because reason tells you something that you don't want to believe?  How, exactly, do you distinguish between when reason is the proper guide and when it is not?  Does reason let you know?  Please don't tell me that faith decides this for you....

You'll have to be specific about what moments are critical, and perhaps why "faith" is an unwanted answer for you (maybe this is the real issue... is your asking whether reason tells me things I don't want to believe just a case of projection, of the fact that you don't want to hear anything about faith?). 

The middle questions are helpful, though.  My only thought would be that you can't leave it all up to "reason", or some other anthropological faculty.  At the limits of reason, who draws the boundary?  If reason itself draws the boundary then reason is saying something about what is in and what is outside of itself.  To do this... to self-demarcate... asks too much of reason.  For reason to be able to draw a line in the sand means that it has already stepped over that line- it becomes absolute, and we fall into some sort of idealism or another.   

In a roundabout way, you declared that science oversteps its bounds "in foreign lands".  Now, it is clear from the context of your statement that religion is this foreign land and science oversteps its bounds when it says anything about religion.  This is where I thought you were dead wrong and I called you out on it.  Nothing personal of course, but if you really believe this, I think you are mistaken.

Science is perfectly able, and should, examine religion and say things about religion.  There's a difference between that and making epistemological judgments about faith and other aspects about theological inquiry, however.  Granted, we can still argue on this level, but science cannot examine these theological questions the same way that it can offer a sociological account of a religious institution or practice. 

I'm glad you liked my logic thread and I appreciate your comment.  I don't see why my statements here are a cause for disappointment though.  I admit I have been quite concise in my comments here....I just don't have the time to address everything in complete detail (the topic we have engaged in here could easily become a dissertation....or a few!). 

1. God is incomprehensible.
2. I think God exists (even though I don't understand what I'm talking about....see #1).
3. All scientists are 'blinded' and therefore we shouldn't listen to them when it comes to religion.
4. Non-religious people are irresponsible.  Faith is the be-all end-all here.

1. Fair enough.  You introduced the term, but fair enough.
2. I don't know if my personal belief about the existence of God ever came into my argument.  And divine incomprehensibility has to do with the adequacy of my categories for exhausting the truth of who God is.  I suppose that means I don't understand what I'm talking about, but you'll have to clarify the relationship between faith and understanding as well as between faith and knowledge before this point will get you anywhere.  Divine incomprehensibility has traditionally stood side by side with God's existence in theological treatises. 
3. Simply never said this, nor implied it.
4. You draw this from the fact that I say "the gatekeeper of responsible theological inquiry is faith".  All that can be drawn from this statement is that "non-religious people" (whatever that means!) are irresponsible theologians.  How can you argue with that? 

I think I should end with a comment on your last sentence because I think it is an important point.  Yes....we all have our 'own' understandings of religion and mine is certainly not the same as yours.  I think I am of a minority opinion that there is a real world out there that we are capable of understanding.  Religion is part of that world.  We can understand it in different ways, but ultimately there are objective facts about how things really are.  We can understand things differently, but at the end of the day there is fact and there is fiction.  Some understandings correspond to the facts and some do not.  Do you not agree?

Entirely agreed.  That's why we're having this conversation, right?  What I meant by:

I think a lot of your characterizations of my "rhetoric" stem from your own understanding of religion rather than mine.

... is that you are not listening to what I'm saying and when arguing your point you replace my comments with your own rudimentary understandings of theological terms, issues, and arguments.  I certainly was not trying to say that our two understandings allow room for two truths.  In fact, I had a problem with the fact that you relied more upon your understanding of theology (from a position of ignorance) than mine, in the same way that a doctor might be a little peeved at me if I argued hus diagnosis because I googled a few of my symptoms.  So I certainly agree with your last points, though the fact that I agree with them might make the stakes less palatable for you.

[invinoveritas]

hvernon,

I have enjoyed debating these issues with you, but I think your argument has become somewhat muddled.  And I thank you for not resenting or complaining about my rather aggressive discussion style.  You seem to be a true 'knight of faith' and I respect that.  Still, I have a number of contentions....

I understand your intention concerning theological inquiry (I think my previous exchanges with religious apologists has led me to suspect that most are incredibly self-righteous, dogmatic, and irrational.  It is an assumption of mine that my experiences have supported, but yes....it was an unwarranted assumption on my part).

Its not that I refuse to 'accept a word you say'.  But if you are defending faith, I think a real defense is in order.  To state it as clearly and concisely as possible, I think that if you are going to defend faith then the burden is on you to explain how faith may arrive at knowledge.  I do not see how this is possible and that is my primary contention to your position.  I think some argument or example is needed to demonstrate this and I have yet to hear one.  Again, its not that I'm simply refusing to listen, I just think that some evidence or example is needed to establish this claim that faith is capable of arriving at knowledge.

I understand your hesitance to accept 'reason' as absolute....and I too think that reason falls into contradictions at times.  This may be a clue to how reason is sometimes limited.  But I fail to see how faith can qualify as an alternative.  Please allow me a short digression on this point:

Kant once claimed that he found it necessary to deny knowledge in order make room for faith.  I think he spoke for all of 'the faithful' on this point.  Any defense of faith involves an attack upon reason.  Some Christians are openly hostile to reason.  Remember Tertullian?  "A plague on Aristotle....What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?....etc."  I think most educated Christians would find his words extreme, but his open assault upon reason is by no means unusual amongst defenders of faith.  Martin Luther calls reason 'the devil's bride....a whore....and God's worst enemy'.  This blatant and unapologetic irrationalism is scary and I think many Christians reject it (though it worries me that some don't).  Certainly some Christians have attempted to reconcile faith and reason (Aquinas is probably the most famous for this...).  My contention is clear and simple: it is logically impossible to reconcile faith and reason.  Why?  The very concept of faith contains within itself a rejection of reason (this is one of the 'critical points' I was referring to).

Although I agree with your claim that science cannot answer all questions, I do not think it is limited to 'sociological accounts' as you suggested.  Consider carbon dating and the theory of evolution.....these examples clearly refute the Genesis story.  Now, I know that the 'liberal Christian' response to this is that Genesis is 'figurative' or 'metaphorical' right?  But how does a Christian decide what Biblical language is metaphorical and what is literal?  Does the Christian want to befriend reason again?  Wait a minute....can the Christian do that consistently?  No.  But now you are left with faith rather than reason and that can't tell the difference for you.....do I really need to explain the inconsistency here?

As far as my interpretation of your argument, I think that I have been as clear as possible.  I may have put some of your statements into simpler categories, but I think this was needed to clarify our debate.  You did not explicitly assert your belief in the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but it was so strongly implied that I thought it only fair to put the card on the table.  You did claim that I need "to clarify the relationship between faith and understanding as well as between faith and knowledge before this point will get you anywhere."  I have already explained my position on this matter clearly: religious faith is diametrically opposed to understanding/knowledge.  It is not a form of understanding and it is not knowledge.  Again, the burden is on you (or anyone else) to explain how faith is a valid means of acquiring knowledge or distinquishing truth from falsity. 

I'm glad we agree on some points....especially that there are objective facts and some understandings correspond to them and others do not.  I just think that reason and science are capable of ascertaining these facts and faith is not.

I have not ignored what you have said.  I have been engaging it closely.  And I have not, as you claimed: "replaced your comments with my own rudimentary understandings of theological terms, issues, and arguments."   I have simply clarified the basic issue and our arguments thus far (perhaps that can be described as 'rudimentary,' but I'd rather get to the point than dance around the issue).  We obviously disagee on the fundamental point: you think faith is a valid cognitive procedure and I do not.  I have explained why it isn't, but you have yet to explain how it is.

[anxiousdee1]

The Pope on the relationship between faith and reason.

This is the speech he gave in Germany which enraged so many Muslims.  If you read more than this terrilbly misunderstood quotation, I think you'll find the Papa has some interesting things to say about the compatibility of these two things--and about the necessity of insisting on rationality in faith so that the madness of terrorism and religious warfare lately ensuing may be ended.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf

[husqvarna]

On Tertullian, please read “Athens and Jerusalem Revisited: Reason and Authority in Tertullian” by Justo Gonzalez, in Church History, 43.1 (1974).  It’s an old article, but helpful.  On Luther (and Thomas), see “Syllogism or Paradox: Aquinas and Luther on Theological Method” by Denis Janz, in Theological Studies, 59.1 (1998). 

Kant is an interesting person to bring up.  To say that he “spoke for all the faithful” is simply to accept the Enlightenment categories that have created all this trouble in the first place.  John Milbank is an interesting place to start reading on the critique of Kant, as is Karl Barth.  Karl Barth is much more reliable in the end, however.  Maybe this essay will help- “Re-reading the post-Kantian tradition with Milbank”, by Gordon Michalson in Journal of Religious Ethics, 32.2 (2004).  Although I’ve just skimmed this article, I think Michalson does a good job of presenting Milbanks very powerful case, but also highlights what is wrong with Milbank’s reading of post-Kantian theology.

Neither Tertullian nor Luther are “openly hostile to reason”.  They are hostile to misused reason.  Anxiousdee has also helpfully posted the Regensburg address, which I agree is worth reading.  It’s a shame that the speech didn’t make its intended impact because of the controversy it sparked.

If you read these, maybe we can discuss the issue further. 

[husqvarna]

Arete1, are you there?

I should have looked at your previous posts before I got into this whole conversation... it seems that practically all you do on the forum is post anti-religious rants.  And while your comments are usually sophisticated enough, they've been rather repetitive and also often laced with bolder (read rude and unbecoming) claims, like the one that pulled me into this discussion with you.  I hate to be too negative, because I do feel like it's been a valuable discussion in many ways, but seeing what else you have said over the past year simply confirms what I've seen here.

I hope you're reading the literature I recommended.  I think we're done here, though- we've definitely brought this thread way off course and it seems unproductive to continue.  Sorry everybody!

[invinoveritas]

hvernon,

I imagine you think this a "rude and unbecoming" comment, but by your aversion of the question posed to you and your directing me to other sources that address the question rather than answer it yourself is more rude and unbecoming than I have been on this thread.

Quite simply, you have failed to defend the position you've asserted here.  You can dance around the issue and call me an 'anti-religious ranter', but I think you (and everyone reading) know that you have lost this debate because you cannot defend how faith is a valid cognitive procedure and you are now shuffling around to save face. 

If speaking clearly and logically is what you call "bold and rude", then yes....I'm guilty.  Arguing logically is not rude.....and if you find it unbecoming, I imagine you have some kind of issue with intellectual honesty....or does it simply bother you that what you believe lacks coherency?

Yes...we are done here.  When one person refuses to defend their assertions in a debate, there is no point in continuing.

[husqvarna]

I love how everyone on this forum says "I'm done" and then jumps back into a conversation!  I think I'll indulge quickly.

You are right that I've avoided discussing faith as a "valid cognitive procedure" even though you've been using that framing of it for some time.  I'm not comfortable with framing it that way, but I feel like I have said just as much to address what you're getting out without accepting your specific terminology on that count. 

And please explain to me, since when does citing sources constitute "dancing around" or "failing to defend" an assertion?  Wasn't I directly countering the points you made?  ...or did you not read the articles?  Isn't THAT a case of avoiding the issue?

I also fail to see your supposed attachment to clarity and logic play out in this discussion... when I've pointed out where you've directly distorted my point you've dodged the fact.

[invinoveritas]

The only reason I'm responding is because you asked questions.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than this:

You are refusing to answer a basic question that lies at the heart of the discussion.  You said you are 'uncomfortable with framing it that way'.  That is nothing more than a cop-out.  What on earth do you mean?  (are you uncomfortable with framing the question of 'what does 2+2 equal' as well?)  I am not using obscure or confusing terminology.  You know exactly what the question is and the answer to it and you have become obstinate because you cannot admit the answer to yourself.  Why?....probably because you are thinking in a bubble of religious faith and delusion.

You were not 'directly countering' the points I made.  There's nothing wrong with borrowing other people's ideas and arguments, but it is proper to summarize them or cite a formal argument if that is the route you wish to take (by the way....I have read some of what you cited...I generally disagree with the arguments). 

Think about it....how would you feel if instead of arguing my position clearly, I simply told you to read....say...Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion or Darwin's Descent of Man, for example.  Sure, the exchange of good books and articles on a topic between scholars is great, but it doesn't count as an argument, and it is not 'directly countering' a point.

And by the way....I have not 'distorted' anything....unless getting to the root of a debate is 'distorting' it.

Why do you refuse to admit that faith is not a proper critierion for distinquishing between truth and falsity?  I do not think this admission would necessarily discredit all aspects of religion entirely (although it would damage the core of it considerably)....  Is this latter problem what makes you so hesitant to accept what your reason is telling you?

[husqvarna]

You are refusing to answer a basic question that lies at the heart of the discussion.  You said you are 'uncomfortable with framing it that way'.  That is nothing more than a cop-out.

"valid cognitive procedure" is troublesome to me mostly because of the word "cognitive".  Cognition can have a wide variety of meanings (another problem, at the opposite end, with using this word), but it also leans very heavily towards a sense of neuropsychological agency (I'm trying to describe it using these terms... if they are already technically defined it is not my intention to use them this way).  I don't want to say that faith isn't a cognitive action in this sense, but I don't want to limit it to this sense, especially because faith is given by grace, so an exclusively anthropological system is not helpful to discussion of faith.  "procedure" is fine with me, although it does give a sense of predetermined method which will not work will with discussion of "grace" as it relates to faith.  Rather than this being a cop-out, I'm simply not agreeing to your terms and trying to discuss the issue with you by describing faith more broadly.  With others I may be willing to use "valid cognitive procedure" with the understanding that we are using the term flexibly, but with you, arete1, I am not convinced that you aren't proposing this particular term with the intent of jumping on me down the road with a very specific definition in order to conclude that you've won the argument.  An agile mind can work around simple definitions like you've provided, and I had hoped we could have a discussion while realizing that terms need to have some "give" in them in order to be fruitful.

You were not 'directly countering' the points I made.  There's nothing wrong with borrowing other people's ideas and arguments, but it is proper to summarize them or cite a formal argument if that is the route you wish to take (by the way....I have read some of what you cited...I generally disagree with the arguments).

Fair enough.  As the converstaion has progressed I've become less and less convinced that you will actually listen to me, so I've increasingly given you places to start reading if you're interested, and I've increasingly not cared where our particular discussion goes.  I have plenty to do besides talking to a brick wall.

But since you seem to be looking for a summary I suppose I can do that.  Really I already, have:

Neither Tertullian nor Luther are “openly hostile to reason”.  They are hostile to misused reason.

the simple fact of the matter is that you have quoted Tertullian and Luther out of context.  This is all that the articles say.  On post-Kantian critique, the article was simply food for thought and not a response to your statements... my response was:

Kant is an interesting person to bring up.  To say that he “spoke for all the faithful” is simply to accept the Enlightenment categories that have created all this trouble in the first place.

There is simply no point in bringing Kant up.  That's likes saying (to come back to our friend Dawkins)... "I think Dawkins speaks for all thinking people when he says that an intelligent person shouldn't believe in God".  Well GOSH, why didn't I realize that before?  Better throw in the towel!

"Why do you refuse to admit that faith is a proper critierion for distinquishing between truth and falsity?  I do not think this admission would necessarily discredit all aspects of [atheism] entirely (although it would damage the core of it considerably)....  Is this latter problem what makes you so hesitant to accept what your [gee, this could be fun... God? heart? friendly fellow forumite?] is telling you?"

Do you see how the knife cuts both ways?  What are you trying to accomplish by constantly pestering religious people in the forum with "Why don't you just admit"... "Why are you hesitant"... "don't you see?"... You missionary zeal is impressive, but who's being hesitant?  Who's being shy or doubtful or ashamed of their beliefs?  You have a serious issue with religion and I don't know where it came from, but you seem to be on a mission to open the eyes of us poor ignorant folk. 

By the way, just out of curiousity... what have you read of my cited stuff, and with what arguments did you disagree?

[dark_globe]

Kant is an interesting person to bring up.  To say that he “spoke for all the faithful” is simply to accept the Enlightenment categories that have created all this trouble in the first place.

There is simply no point in bringing Kant up.  That's likes saying (to come back to our friend Dawkins)... "I think Dawkins speaks for all thinking people when he says that an intelligent person shouldn't believe in God".  Well GOSH, why didn't I realize that before?  Better throw in the towel!

"Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

[merce]

Oh for pete's sake,
Get a room Hvernon & arete!


;-)

[husqvarna]

We would make a rather cute couple, wouldn't we?  Disfunctional, but cute.

[husqvarna]

dysfunctional... Damn dysfunctional modify option....