First and foremost, you give me a source from a Christian theologian. I would really like to hear what he has to say about Satanism, Buddhism, Pantheism, etc. I bet itâs not going to be the same feel good speech.
Which brings me to my next point. This is a feel good speech. Nothing more, nothing less. Yay Christ is good yayâŚweâre all blessed and so on and so forth.
I like to equate faith in a supernarutal being with coffee. Itâs good, it gets you going, some people can do without it and live halthier lives.
What about all the bad stuff in the Bible? I donât see them mentioned anywhere in there. Yay Christ is good BUT heâs also anti-family.
Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we donât even know existed) more than our family. 10:37
Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you.âJudges 19:24
Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their âjust and righteousâ father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldnât you know it!). Just another wholesome family values Bible story. 19:30-38
God tells the Israelites to kill their family and friends for dancing naked around Aaronâs golden calf. 32:27-
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, âthou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death.â If Bible-believers followed this one, they would have to kill many of their own family and friends. 13:6-10
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has âcome not to send peace, but a sword.â 10:34-36
So, your approach is to basically take everything good and ignore the rest? Well, maybe I should be talking for you, and Iâm sorry if I sound too arrogant at times. I understand that some people need to believe in something greater than themselves in order to function. They donât know what, but they believe. Maybe they donât want to be responsible for their lives. Itâs not their fault when something bad happens. It was meant to beâŚ
Reason Versus Faith
-
Confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought. Whether one is engaged in a process of problem solving, or of gaining new knowledge, or of drawing implications from present knowledge, or of directing oneâs actions, a lack of precision in oneâs thinking will undermine or completely sabotage the achievement of oneâs goal.
The purpose of abstract, philosophical thought is to achieve understanding. A philosophical argument is spurred by an intellectual disagreement, and the purpose of argumentation is to resolve this conflict by reaching a common understanding among the participants. A confused, muddled argument cannot attain this goal because it fails to specify the precise nature of the conflict. Whatever elements a confused argument may contain, it necessarily lacks one ingredient: clarity. Clarityâthe precision of thought and communicationâis the antidote for confusion; they cannot coexist. Where there is confusion, there is vagueness and the absence of definition.
If confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought, clarity is its closest ally. Specifying the precise nature of the problem to be solved is often a major contributing factor in arriving at a solution. It has been said, with considerable justification, that a question well-asked is half-answered. Applying this principle to the realm of philosophical disputes, we may say that a conflict well-defined is half-resolved.
In order fully to understand the nature of a philosophical conflict, one must grasp the fundamental differences that give rise to the conflict. One must investigate the basic issues and apply this knowledge to the disputed issue.
A debated subject is often a symptom, a surface manifestation, of a more basic underlying disagreement. Unless this area is exploredâand unless some agreement is reachedâthe conflict will continue, while becoming repetitious and dull. The result is a kind of âintellectual atrophy,â where the argument proceeds without significant progress, where no new material is introduced, and where the participants know beforehand that neither side will convince the other.
This âintellectual atrophyâ is typical of the conflict between Christianity and atheism. Volumes are written on the subject of God, pro and con, but fresh material is rarely presented. The Christian presents the standard arguments for the existence of God, and the atheist presents the standard refutations of these arguments. The Christian responds with a flurry of counter-objections, and the atheist retaliates.
Meanwhile, the average bystander becomes confused and impatient. He has observed arguments, but he has not been told why these arguments are important. He has witnessed the disagreements, but he has not been presented with the basic conflicts underlying them. While this person may have absorbed a smattering of divergent theories and ideas, he lacks an overall perspective, a frame of reference from which to integrate and evaluate the particulars that have been thrust upon him. Consequently, he frequently dismisses the philosophical investigation of theism as too abstract, remote and irrelevant to merit his attention. He will leave philosophy to the philosophers; and, while they construct endless debates, he will rely on what he has been taught, or on what his friends believeâor on what his âcommon senseâ and âintuitionsâ tell him.
Although some philosophers seem to have a vested interest in representing it as such, philosophy is not an esoteric discipline reserved for a select few. As with any specialized field, a detailed knowledge of philosophical issues requires concentrated study, but a basic grasp of the philosophical differences between theism and atheism is available to any person who cares to put forth some effort.
Many Christian laymen are contemptuous of philosophical objections to their belief in God. They may spurn philosophy as irrelevant, while claiming to believe not in âthe God of the philosophers,â but in âthe God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.â Even if this distinction were valid, it would not change the fact that the Christian implicitly adopts many philosophical beliefs. By his belief in a supernatural being, the Christian commits himself to a metaphysical view concerning the nature of reality. By his belief in the unknowable, he commits himself to an epistemological view concerning the scope of human reason. By his belief in divine moral commandments, he commits himself to an ethical view concerning the foundation of moral principles.
It is the responsibility of the philosopher to identify the underlying assumptions of these commonly held beliefs. A clarification of basic issues is essential to any discussion of theism and atheism. The question of the existence of God is the tip of an iceberg; under the surface, there are crucial problems that must be solved.
Does the theist have reasons for his belief in God? If so, what are they? What is his evidence?âor, more importantly, what is the nature of evidence in general? What does the Christian mean when he claims to know of Godâs existence?âor, more importantly, what is the nature of knowledge in general? How do we acquire knowledge? How do we distinguish truth from falsity?
These and similar questions fall within the sphere of epistemology, the branch of philosophy which investigates the origin and nature of knowledge. Since the differences between a Christian and an atheist often narrow down to their different responses to the above questions, epistemology is the arena where the deciding battle must be fought.
The conflict between Christian theism and atheism is fundamentally a conflict between faith and reason. This, in epistemological terms, is the essence of the controversy. Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.
Explicit atheism is the consequence of a commitment to rationalityâthe conviction that manâs mind is fully competent to know the facts of reality, and that no aspect of the universe is closed to rational scrutiny. Atheism is merely a corollary, a specific application, of oneâs commitment to reason.
I will not accept the existence of God, or any doctrine, on faith because I reject faith as a valid cognitive procedure. The particular content or object of faithâwhether it be gods, unicorns or gremlinsâis irrelevant in this context. The statement, âI will not accept the existence of God on faithâ is derived from the wider statement, âI will not accept anything on faith.â Thus, explicit atheism is primarily an epistemological position: if reason is oneâs only guide to knowledge, faith is necessarily excluded. If theistic doctrines must be accepted on faith, theism is necessarily excluded. A rational man will be without theistic belief, and therefore atheistic.
While some versions of theistic belief may claim to operate only within the sphere of reason, it remains true that all versions of Christianity eventually appeal to the concept of faith. Through faith the Christian claims to transcend reason and gain knowledge inaccessible to manâs rational capacity. Even those Christians who attempt to rationally demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being refuse to offer similar demonstrations of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, and other essential Christian beliefs.
Faith is the common thread running throughout the divergent approaches to Christian theism. The Catholic and the Protestant, the liberal and the fundamentalist, the existentialist and the Thomistâall must rely on the validity of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge. Faith is the epistemological underpinning of Christianity. If faith collapses, so does Christianity.
-
Immanuel Kant wrote that he âfound it necessary to deny knowledge of God ⌠in order to find a place for faith.â All advocates of faith are Kantians in this respect. In any defense of faith that one cares to examine, one will find an attack on reason.
Some Christians are openly hostile to reason (notably those sympathetic with existentialism). These Christians usually declare that reason is nothing more than an impersonal calculating device, a cold deductive faculty that cannot give meaning and substance to manâs life. Faith, on the other hand, is âvital and indescribableâ; it âpartakes of the mystery of life itself. The opposition between faith and reason is that between the vital and the rational. âŚâ Christian faith "is not only faith beyond reason but, if need be, against reason."1
The Church Father Tertullian ( A.D. 150-225) stands out as a paradigm of the Christian antagonism to reason. In De Came Cristi he emphasizes the paradoxical nature of Christian belief.
And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible.2
Tertullian takes seriously the biblical promise that God âwill destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.â âIt is philosophy,â Tertullian asserts, âthat supplies the heresies with their equipment.â He wishes âa plague on Aristotleâ and poses the now famous question: âWhat has Jerusalem to do with Athens? âŚâ
After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believeâŚ
My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification. (3)
Tertullianâs explicit advocacy of paradox is extreme even for Christianity, but his open assault on reason is by no means unusual. Many Christians freely admit the conflict between reason and faith and have declared war on reason. Martin Luther, to take a famous illustration, calls reason âthe devilâs bride,â a âbeautiful whoreâ and âGodâs worst enemy.â âThere is on earth among all dangers,â writes Luther, âno more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.â According to Luther, âFaith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God.â (4)
This gross irrationalism is abhorrent to any person with a semblance of respect for logical thought. The conflict between reason and faithâcarried to its extreme in the above examples-is the focal point of critical atheism. For the atheist, to embrace faith is to abandon reason. One atheist defines faith as âthe commitment of oneâs consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof.â (5) Another atheist writes that "Christian faith is not merely believing that there is a god.
It is believing that there is a god no matter what the evidence on the question may be."
âHave faith,â in the Christian sense, means âmake yourself believe that there is a god without regard to evidence.â Christian faith is a habit of flouting reason in forming and maintaining oneâs answer to the question whether there is a god. (6)
Many Christians strenuously object to this portrayal of faith as unjustified or irrational belief. On the contrary, they claim that reason and faith are different ways of acquiring knowledge: both can arrive at truth, and neither contradicts the other. To argue that faith rests upon âinadequate evidence,â or that faith âis the habit of the irrational or the nonrationalâ is âentirely unfaithful to the Scriptural and traditional teaching of Judaism and Christianity.â (7) According to these Christians, the atheist, by representing faith as contrary to reason, is fighting a straw man.
It is true that many Christian apologists have striven to reconcile reason and faith: this was a dominant theme of the later Middle Ages, and it remains an important element of Roman Catholicism. It would be a mistake to attribute to all Christians the overt hostility to reason displayed by Tertullian. However, the historical attempts to reconcile reason and faith are beside the point. The crucial issue is: Have these attempts succeeded? Moreover, can any attempt at rapprochement possibly succeed? To both of these questions, the answer is an emphatic âno.â
I am not merely arguing, as a matter of historical fact, that all attempts to reconcile reason and faith have failed. My position is stronger than this. I am asserting that all such efforts must fail, that it is logically impossible to reconcile reason and faith. The concept of faith itself carries a âbuilt-inâ deprecation of reason; and without this anti-reason element, the concept of faith is rendered meaningless. (Throughout this discussion, the term âfaithâ refers to a supposedly reliable method of acquiring knowledge. Any other notion of faith is irrelevant with regard to the existence of God and the truth of Christian doctrines.)
In the next two chapters we shall examine the nature of reason and the major theories of faith advocated by Christian apologists. The groundwork for these discussions is presented in the remainder of this chapter, where I defend the position that reason and faith are, and must be, irreconcilable.
http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god_part_2_reason_vs_faith.htm
