It seems to me that the assumption that faith is exempt from critical reasoning is a false assumption, although it may well be one's experience ... if that is so, then that is unfortunate, but it is an individual experience, not necessarily the rule.
Aquinas' famous 'Five Proofs of God' are founded on an Aristotelian reasoning of empirical data — the result is highly indicative, but not, of course, conclusive.
What is sometimes overlooked, however, is that although inconclusive, the original hypothesis has not been refuted, so the 'proofs' withstand hard critical cross-examination. Both Aristotle and Aquinas were aware of the fact that the object of enquiry, an acting Divine Presence, lies beyond empirical proof (being beyond empirial measure) but the proofs themselves argue strongly in an inescapable direction ... the foundation of the science of ontology.
Indeed, the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, albeit backed by a significant and seemingly inarguable body of supporting evidence. It's a technicality that we have never observed one species evolving into another under the conditions necessary to declare it a fact.
But two questions occur:
1 - why do some scientists hold a reserve with the regard to the embrace of all its implications?
2 - if questioned, how many of us are informed enough to assert that we have done more than simply accept this finding on faith?
The world turns on faith — as recent economic ripples in the US demonstrate, once man becomes uncertain, it is a crisis of faith that can bring about the collapse of system that was capable of withstanding the initial shock if all the players hold their nerve.
And I have experienced that shock, of certain asssumptions of faith being undone, but have rested on the knowledge that others I respect have survived it. And so far I have ... a 'set back' indeed, but if one chases the flaw to its root, it can be repaired.
Covering up the cracks in 'Blind Faith' leaves one skating on thin ice.
+++
So whilst the object of faith empirically and therefore inescapably lies beyond the reach of the pure reasoning capacity (else it would itself be a question of reason and not faith), what has been established is that a strong body of evidence points in the direction that faith should enquire ... the same operation of faith that drives science to look for black holes or a cure for a common ailment.
Informed faith points reason in the direction of an answer.
We would do ourselves, as a species, a great disservice if we ruled out faith founded on reason as a direction of endeavour — even moreso indeed, when sometimes the greatest scientific endeavours are founded on no more than a 'gut instinct' or a 'hunch', and again we would be unwise to write off the specifically religious instinct in man as the worthless residue of a superstitious and non-scientific phenomenology.
The 'trick' of course is to start at the begining. Work with what you can and do find reasonable and ask why others are prepared to reason that which you find unreasonable ... being mindful that one is not omniscient. As a Catholic and neophyte theologian I usually get asked the million dollar question, with the assumption that the answer will sit comfortably in mid-air because there's no foundation to rest the answer on.
+++
That you can't see it might not prove it is not there.
And the prior assumption that it's not there is often the foundation of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thomas
Aquinas' famous 'Five Proofs of God' are founded on an Aristotelian reasoning of empirical data — the result is highly indicative, but not, of course, conclusive.
What is sometimes overlooked, however, is that although inconclusive, the original hypothesis has not been refuted, so the 'proofs' withstand hard critical cross-examination. Both Aristotle and Aquinas were aware of the fact that the object of enquiry, an acting Divine Presence, lies beyond empirical proof (being beyond empirial measure) but the proofs themselves argue strongly in an inescapable direction ... the foundation of the science of ontology.
Indeed, the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, albeit backed by a significant and seemingly inarguable body of supporting evidence. It's a technicality that we have never observed one species evolving into another under the conditions necessary to declare it a fact.
But two questions occur:
1 - why do some scientists hold a reserve with the regard to the embrace of all its implications?
2 - if questioned, how many of us are informed enough to assert that we have done more than simply accept this finding on faith?
The world turns on faith — as recent economic ripples in the US demonstrate, once man becomes uncertain, it is a crisis of faith that can bring about the collapse of system that was capable of withstanding the initial shock if all the players hold their nerve.
And I have experienced that shock, of certain asssumptions of faith being undone, but have rested on the knowledge that others I respect have survived it. And so far I have ... a 'set back' indeed, but if one chases the flaw to its root, it can be repaired.
Covering up the cracks in 'Blind Faith' leaves one skating on thin ice.
+++
So whilst the object of faith empirically and therefore inescapably lies beyond the reach of the pure reasoning capacity (else it would itself be a question of reason and not faith), what has been established is that a strong body of evidence points in the direction that faith should enquire ... the same operation of faith that drives science to look for black holes or a cure for a common ailment.
Informed faith points reason in the direction of an answer.
We would do ourselves, as a species, a great disservice if we ruled out faith founded on reason as a direction of endeavour — even moreso indeed, when sometimes the greatest scientific endeavours are founded on no more than a 'gut instinct' or a 'hunch', and again we would be unwise to write off the specifically religious instinct in man as the worthless residue of a superstitious and non-scientific phenomenology.
The 'trick' of course is to start at the begining. Work with what you can and do find reasonable and ask why others are prepared to reason that which you find unreasonable ... being mindful that one is not omniscient. As a Catholic and neophyte theologian I usually get asked the million dollar question, with the assumption that the answer will sit comfortably in mid-air because there's no foundation to rest the answer on.
+++
That you can't see it might not prove it is not there.
And the prior assumption that it's not there is often the foundation of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thomas
