About Reason

[Serafina17]

Well, I shall try to make this as un-confusing as possible, which shall be a chore, due to the never ending cycle of craziness in my mind… I’m driving myself nearly crazy trying to figure out an answer, and I figure a good idea is to get some help in sorting it all out.

So I doubt a lot. Not God, not the Church, but myself. My own intellect/reason. Which makes life miserable at times. Here’s how it goes: I know there’s a lot of brilliant people in this world who disagree with me in matters of faith. This being the case, how can I trust my own reason? There are intellectuals out there who know a TON more than me, and yet I claim to have gotten it right? What makes my reason superior to theirs? How can I say that I reason better than they? That my reasons for believing what I do are better than theirs? Also, do I have to examine every teaching, every doctrine of the Church, for error before putting all my trust in it? Would that be reasonable? I mean, reason’s pretty much all I have. I have faith in something because I reason first, right? If not, should I apply that reasoning to other religions? Have faith in it (Islam, Buddhism, etc.) then reason? Why Christianity? And, can we ever KNOW for absolute certain that Christianity is true? Or only reason to the best of our abilities…?

I am soo confused, and the more I try to think it out, the more confused I become. And this struggle really hits home. Combine this problem with spiritual dryness and you have one miserable Christian. Advice??

 

[DavidFilmer]

There is a man named Lenny Susskind who started out his career as a plumber, following in his father’s footsteps. He went on to become a physicist, against his father’s wishes.

Susskind was a poor Jew, and the son of a poor Jew.

He was confronted with a particular teaching of Stephen Hawking, which was accepted by all the “great minds” in the physics community - namely, that black holes were such a severe disruption in space-time that they defied one of the fundamental laws of physics, namely the conservation of information. Susskind was appalled that Hawking (et al) would consider equations that violated this fundamental principle.

This poor Jewish plumber (and son of a poor Jewish plumber) rebelled against this “doctrine” of physics. The fundamental laws of physics are, after all, fundamental laws - they function in black holes just as well as they function in Trenton, New Jersey.

The “masters” of physics scoffed and rebuffed him for 28 years, until Susskind finally won the day, and Hawking was finally forced to concede that Susskind was correct. The Law of Conservation of Information was shown to hold true, even within the severe environment of a black hole. Susskind was right.

Lots of very smart people are sometimes very wrong. Sometimes, a plumber knows more than a great physicist.

 

[Los_Angeles]

So I doubt a lot. Not God, not the Church, but myself. My own intellect/reason. Which makes life miserable at times. Here’s how it goes: I know there’s a lot of brilliant people in this world who disagree with me in matters of faith. This being the case, how can I trust my own reason? There are intellectuals out there who know a TON more than me, and yet I claim to have gotten it right? What makes my reason superior to theirs? How can I say that I reason better than they? That my reasons for believing what I do are better than theirs?

If you are seeking truth or an education, its not about being superior to someone else’s reasoing abilities, but rather what conclusions you arrive at together from reason.

A person who uses reason respects a person who argues from reason.

Also, do I have to examine every teaching, every doctrine of the Church, for error before putting all my trust in it? Would that be reasonable? I mean, reason’s pretty much all I have. I have faith in something because I reason first, right? If not, should I apply that reasoning to other religions? Have faith in it (Islam, Buddhism, etc.) then reason? Why Christianity?

It would probably be prudent to start investigating the Catholic Church from the main problems that you have understanding or agreeing with. Usually the “minor” issues fall into place or make more sense when the major problems are overcome.

And, can we ever KNOW for absolute certain that Christianity is true? Or only reason to the best of our abilities…?

You can start by asking yourself what critera do you use to know that anything is true. Then try applying that to Christianity.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[authenticity]

This is just my own assessment. The purpose of religion in general is to facilitate a spiritual experience. We might define a spiritual experience as a change of perspective from self-centered to God-centered. The scripture, teachings, and traditions of the Church are there to lead you to that change in perception. It’s not about proving you are right or that you know more than others-- people that are religious for either of those reasons are still operating from an ego-centric state.

So why believe in Christianity over Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam or in any religion for that matter? I studied and practiced both Buddhism and Hinduism. I also was involved in the occult and New Age groups. For a while, I believed in nothing and just lived my life without much thought for religion at all.

What I found was that I was always trying to find a path that fit my pre-conceived notions of a religion or how I thought life should be, which meant that it was always what my ego wanted it to be. And, secondly, whenever a belief system required me to change what I do or admit that I was wrong in some fashion, I would switch to a new system. Essentially, I was sabotaging myself. So, I came to the conclusion that I had to commit to one path and really walk the walk; even when I didn’t practice it perfectly or know everything about it.

Buddhism, Hinduism, the New Age and the atheist humanists believe that everything is self generated. Your salvation or enlightenment in these systems is therefore also self created. My criticism of this idea is two-fold. One, a very limited number of people really have the discipline or knowledge to spiritually perfect themselves. My salvation in Christianity isn’t based on me or what I do, but rather my faith in what Christ does to me. And the other problem is this self is limited, so what do I use as a measure of perfection? If I didn’t have Christ as my measure, I would require someone like him.

So why the Catholic Church and not a Protestant church? The Protestant suffers from the same problem that people of other belief systems suffer from: they are choosing their own definition of truth based upon their personal understanding. Why is one Protestants interpretation of scripture and salvation correct and another one incorrect? Because they say so, nothing else.

The Catholic Church doesn’t function like that. It isn’t any one person’s interpretation of the Bible or even a collective interpretation; it is a living expression of what the Bible teaches. For example, we can read in the Bible of Our Lord’s sacrifice and resurrection, but it is through the Eucharist that we become a witness and a part of Christ’s salvation. A Protestant can talk about it, but a Catholic participates. My salvation isn’t based on a preacher’s charisma or if the Christian rock band/ choir really fires me up or if I felt welcomed by a volunteer. Rather, it is the grace given through communion-- my free choice to be a part of the body of Christ in a real way-- that determines my salvation.

I sort of got off on a tangent here, but I hope that I’ve relieved some of the confusion you are having. I know, I’ve been there.

God bless

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

Dear friend,as St.Paul wrote,don’t argue. And what comes to the rest of Your question,and I do see and understand the problem,but ask Your self,what is more important,to be right in the eyes of God or in the eyes of other people? You know the answer,and remember,true faith does not need knowledge. God bless You.

 

[Serafina17]

Thank you all for your answers! They helped a lot.

 

[Abu]

Serafina17
This may be helpful from a master of the faith. You might like to get his book.

From Fr Thomas Dubay, Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.”

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].