RE: Reason and Faith

Yes, as C.S. Lewis put it, the atheist is saying that
they have a proof that there is no such thing as
proofs. This of Lewis' stems in part from similar
discussions

Although coming at it from a very different
perspective, Hans Kung, in _Does God Exist_, makes,
IMHO, a very persuasive argument that various
worldviews really boil down to two options (meaning
that even though an atheist would not necessarily call
themselves a nihilist, their philosophical view from
an epistemic and ontologic standpoint will necessarily
entail nihilism no matter how much they try to dress
it up as not being nihilistic) -- theism and nihilism
-- and that nihilism is inherently contradictory in
trying to put it into practice.

While Kung's work is very German - meaning, in part,
very philosophical and historical - I think it is an
excellent canvassing of the field.
 
--- "Gough, Joshua" <xzg3@cdc.gov> wrote:
> That is pretty interesting. The basic idea boils
> down to how both
> "Reason" and "Faith" involve belief. I recently
> started reading C.S.
> Lewis's Miracles and came across a part that tackles
> this issue. I don't
> have the text with me, but it described how
> difficult it was for him to
> see how a rational mind evolving without a rational
> mind having first
> designed the system in which the mind formed. That
> is here I am at. It
> seems unbelievable to me that our minds can be said
> to be rational if
> indeed there is no such thing as an ultimate source
> of ration. To me it
> looks like the atheists are saying, "Hey it's
> obvious to us that there
> is no God, but it's also obvious that everything
> obeys rational
> principles, but please don't think that means there
> is a ration-giver
> behind such principles. That would make you a dumb,
> while we are the
> brights."
>
> -Josh
>
> If everything is relative, why do you disagree when
> I say everything is
> not relative?
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Al Koop [mailto:koopa@gvsu.edu]
> >>Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 11:45 AM
> >>To: asa@calvin.edu
> >>Subject: Reason and Faith
> >>
> >>The New York Times today has a worthwhile article
> on Faith and Reason
> >>and how the two are inseperable and seemingly
> incompatible.
> Especially
> >>read the last several paragraphs, even if you
> don't like those at the
> >>beginning of the essay.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/arts/20FAIT.html?ex=1072936830&ei=1&
> en=4
> >>4d0cec78f5d3aad
> >>
> >>
> >>Reason and Faith, Eternally Bound
> >>
> >>December 20, 2003
> >> By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
> >>
> >>One might have expected the forces of Reason to be
> a bit
> >>weary after a generation of battling postmodernism
> and
> >>having its power and authority under constant
> scrutiny.
> >>Reason's battles, though, continue unabated. Only
> now it
> >>finds its opposition in the more unyielding claims
> of
> >>religious faith. This latest conflict is over
> seemingly
> >>incompatible ways of knowing the world. It is a
> conflict
> >>between competing certainties: between followers
> of Faith,
> >>who know because they believe, and followers of
> Reason, who
> >>believe because they know.
> >>
> >>This battle echoes others taking place between
> >>fundamentalist terror, which claims the authority
> of Faith,
> >>and Western modernity, which claims the authority
> of
> >>Reason. But some of Reason's combatants - as if
> reading
> >>from the postmodernist strategy book - are also
> challenging
> >>the heritage of the West, arguing that it, too,
> has been
> >>riddled with absolutist faith, that the reasoned
> >>achievements of the Enlightenment are still under
> threat
> >>and that a new understanding of the past must take
> shape,
> >>in which Reason's martyrdom and trials take center
> stage.
> >>
> >>One motivation for Reason's latest salvos is
> political. A
> >>Gallup poll last year said that about 40 percent
> of
> >>Americans considered themselves evangelicals or
> born-again
> >>Christians. They include the president, the
> attorney
> >>general, the speaker of the House and the House
> majority
> >>leader.
> >>
> >>Critics of the Bush administration's policies
> sometimes
> >>cite such beliefs as evidence of the
> administration's
> >>potential fundamentalism and intolerance. In the
> recent
> >>book "A Devil's Chaplain" (Houghton Mifflin, $24),
> for
> >>example, Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University
> >>evolutionary biologist, worries about American
> responses to
> >>the attacks of 9/11 because "the United States is
> the most
> >>religiose country in Christendom, and its
> born-again leader
> >>is eyeball to eyeball with the most religiose
> people on
> >>Earth."
> >>
> >>Mr. Dawkins has long been a harsh critic of
> religion, which
> >>he considers a form of infectious virus that
> readily
> >>replicates, spreading its distortions. Last summer
> he
> >>lobbied in The Guardian for adopting "bright" as a
> noun to
> >>mean atheist (as in "I'm a bright. You're a
> bright").
> >>
> >>The philosopher Daniel C. Dennett echoed his
> urgings in an
> >>Op-Ed article in The New York Times. Mr. Dawkins
> and Mr.
> >>Dennett argue that brights are a beleaguered group
> >>confronting a growing religious right; they urge
> brights to
> >>emerge from their closet and boldly proclaim their
> >>identity.
> >>
> >>"So, what's the opposite of a bright?" Mr. Dawkins
> imagines
> >>someone asking, "What would you call a religious
> person?"
> >>
> >>"What would you suggest?" he coyly responds.
> >>
> >>There are of
> >>course approaches that are less blunt and more
> liberal
> >>minded, but the sense of embattlement and polemic
> has
> >>become familiar. In the recent book "The Closing
> of the
> >>Western Mind" (Knopf, $30), for example, Charles
> Freeman
> >>argues that Western history has to be retold. Over
> the
> >>course of centuries, he points out, the ancient
> Greeks
> >>recognized the importance of reason, giving birth
> to the
> >>techniques of modern science and mathematics, and
> >>establishing the foundations of the modern state.
> But then,
> >>he writes, came "the closing of the Western mind."
> >>
> >>In the fourth and fifth century, he writes, the
> Greek
> >>intellectual tradition "was destroyed by the
> political and
> >>religious forces which made up the highly
> authoritarian
> >>government of the late Roman empire," particularly
> with the
> >>imposition of Christian orthodoxy. For a
> millennium
> >>doctrine ruled. Reason became heresy.
> >>
> >>It is precisely this sort of heresy that Jennifer
> Michael
> >>Hecht celebrates in "Doubt: A History"
> (HarperSanFrancisco,
> >>$27.95), which outlines the views of those who
> rejected
> >>dominant doctrines of faith or proclaimed
> disbelief in the
> >>existence of God. Her loosely defined roster of
> doubters
> >>ranges from the ancient Greeks to Zen Buddhists,
> along with
> >>such familiar figures as Galileo, Hobbes, Gibbon,
> Tom
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Received on Mon Dec 22 09:53:19 2003