Does intellectual analysis of religion facilitate or inhibit true faith?

[meltzerboy]

My question to all of you is whether intensive analysis of religious teachings helps one to appreciate one’s faith more, or does it tend to diminish one’s faith by making it more of a rational exercise in understanding than a spiritual journey of the soul? This is not necessarily an either-or choice. I’m not suggesting that total ignorance is necessary to have faith. Certainly the great Catholic leaders of the Church and Catholic philosophers were far from ignorant, and the same applies to other religions. But perhaps certain learned scholars lose some of the magic they once had. Or, on the contrary, do you think the spirit becomes more profound through study?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Francis Bacon Philosopher of the Scientific Method
“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” Francis Bacon

Personally, I think philosophy can go either way. Reason can be used to support the idea of God and our need to relate to Him, or it can be used to debunk that idea. The attraction to God I think originates more in the will than in the intellect. If you want God to exist, you can order your intellect to be open to evidence that God does exist. If you don’t want God to exist, you can order your intellect to be closed to God. The critical question to be answered is: why does one want or not want God to exist.

 

[meltzerboy]

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Francis Bacon Philosopher of the Scientific Method
“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” Francis Bacon

Personally, I think philosophy can go either way. Reason can be used to support the idea of God and our need to relate to Him, or it can be used to debunk that idea. The attraction to God I think originates more in the will than in the intellect. If you want God to exist, you can order your intellect to be open to evidence that God does exist. If you don’t want God to exist, you can order your intellect to be closed to God. The critical question to be answered is: why does one want or not want God to exist.

Great quotations, and I tend to agree with your own view. Thanks so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Jesus_123]

+Christianity . . . as taught by our Holy Mother Church . . . is by no means a “religion” of human reason alone . . . at the beginning of Fides et ratio . . .

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II
FIDES ET RATIO
To the Bishops
of the Catholic Church
on the relationship
between Faith and Reason
1998.09.14
:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

is recorded a blessing from our highly esteemed Holy Father . . . Pope John Paul the Great . . . which brings into focus . . . **human reason ** . . . and its significance in . . . participating with . . . God . . . in the salvific nature of the Holy Gift of Christian Faith . . .

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of TRUTH; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the TRUTH—in a word, to know HIMSELF—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”
​

Continuing on in Fides et ratio, Chapter 1, Section #9 . . .

"…Based upon God’s testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace,

• FAITH is of an order
  other than
• PHILOSOPHICAL knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. **
• **PHILOSOPHY****and the sciences function within the order of natural reason;

while

• FAITH, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32)."

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P1.HTM

:bible1:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,
saith the Lord."Isaiah 55:8

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank You Holy Mother Church+
. . . thank you blessed Pope John Paul II+​

 

[Katholish]

My question to all of you is whether intensive analysis of religious teachings helps one to appreciate one’s faith more, or does it tend to diminish one’s faith by making it more of a rational exercise in understanding than a spiritual journey of the soul? This is not necessarily an either-or choice. I’m not suggesting that total ignorance is necessary to have faith. Certainly the great Catholic leaders of the Church and Catholic philosophers were far from ignorant, and the same applies to other religions. But perhaps certain learned scholars lose some of the magic they once had. Or, on the contrary, do you think the spirit becomes more profound through study?

Faith is an intellectual virtue (though it clearly involves the will as well), thus objectively it is strengthened when one has a greater grasp of the truth. Ignorance is the opposite of an intellectual virtue, and hence it objectively limits true faith.

 

[valentino]

My question to all of you is whether intensive analysis of religious teachings helps one to appreciate one’s faith more, or does it tend to diminish one’s faith by making it more of a rational exercise in understanding than a spiritual journey of the soul? This is not necessarily an either-or choice. I’m not suggesting that total ignorance is necessary to have faith. Certainly the great Catholic leaders of the Church and Catholic philosophers were far from ignorant, and the same applies to other religions. But perhaps certain learned scholars lose some of the magic they once had. Or, on the contrary, do you think the spirit becomes more profound through study?

It helps to understand the bible better.The Catholic has been intensely studing scriptures since they were writthen.Every word and verse of scripture has truth in it.There are no useless words.They were put there for a reason. (thats Catholic Church above)The better one knows scripture the better he knows how Christ really wants man to be and become.The only problem will be in interpreting the true meaning of what one reads.He needs a Catholic bible with foot notes or a companion bible.The bible is extremely confusing to anyone who picks it up and reads it for the first time.Without help its easy set it aside and just forget it.

 

[Lord_Emsworth]

Stephen Hawking had this to say.
“As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of time.This was first pointed out by St.Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn’t reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.”

Again from Hawking, re: the unifying theory.
“But the idea that God might want to change his mind is an example of the fallacy pointed out by St. Augustine, of Imagining God as existing in time: time is a property only of the universe that God has created. Presumably, he knew what he intended when he set it up!”

Bertrand Russell a renowned athiest had this to say about Augustine. "The gist of the solution he suggests is that time is subjective: time is in the the human mind, which expects, considers, and remenbers. It follows that there can be no time without a created being, and that to speak of of time before creation is meaningless.

I myself do not agree with this theory, in so far as it makes time something mental. But it is clearly a very able theory, deserving to be seriously considered. I should go further, and say that it is a great advance on the subject in Greek philosophy. It contains a better and clearer statement than Kants of the subjective theory of time- a theory which, since Kant, has been widely accepted among philosophers."

Look. If Stephen Hawking and Bertrand Russell, two secularists if ever there were any, can agree that St. Augustine may have been ahead of his time, who am I to disagree.

 

[abucs]

It’s a good question. Personally, i think for the last 200 years there has been a great push from atheists to divorce reason from faith in God which has convinced many people.

I guess the Christian/Jewish response has been by some to concentrate on reason and to argue from reason using only reason as a yardstick. While i think this is a good thing, it does run the risk of the defender (or searcher) being so immersed in reason (and their own limited capabilities to reason) that they can forget about God which i think is necessary for reason to exist in the first place and which offers so much more than ‘reason alone’.

 

[wanstronian]

Stephen Hawking had this to say.
“As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of time.This was first pointed out by St.Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn’t reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.”

Again from Hawking, re: the unifying theory.
“But the idea that God might want to change his mind is an example of the fallacy pointed out by St. Augustine, of Imagining God as existing in time: time is a property only of the universe that God has created. Presumably, he knew what he intended when he set it up!”

Bertrand Russell a renowned athiest had this to say about Augustine. "The gist of the solution he suggests is that time is subjective: time is in the the human mind, which expects, considers, and remenbers. It follows that there can be no time without a created being, and that to speak of of time before creation is meaningless.

I myself do not agree with this theory, in so far as it makes time something mental. But it is clearly a very able theory, deserving to be seriously considered. I should go further, and say that it is a great advance on the subject in Greek philosophy. It contains a better and clearer statement than Kants of the subjective theory of time- a theory which, since Kant, has been widely accepted among philosophers."

Look. If Stephen Hawking and Bertrand Russell, two secularists if ever there were any, can agree that St. Augustine may have been ahead of his time, who am I to disagree.

What’s this got to do with analysis of religion? The question wasn’t about analysis of time!

 

[tonyrey]

The intensive analysis of religious teachings helps us to appreciate our faith more because it is an integral part of the spiritual journey of the soul! Some learned scholars may lose some of the magic they once had because they fail to see the wood for the trees - an occupational hazard of any specialist. But the faith of great philosophers and theologians like St Thomas Aquinas becomes deeper and brings them closer to God because they realize the full implications of their beliefs. Philosophy and theology are in effect forms of meditation which often lead to contemplation and action!

 

[Joel_PF]

If we keep in mind that, according to the more orthodox Catholic position, reason and spirit are the same thing, then study is obviously very good for one’s spiritual life.

It all hinges on the attitude with which this study is carried on: the sources one selects (one shouldn’t only select sources they know will agree with their current beliefs; but they also shouldn’t take as their most important guide the opinions of those who deny their faith), the person’s disposition to conciliate things which might appear contradictory, their care not to let go of their more strictly spiritual practices (prayer, receiving the Sacraments, etc) - which actually help the study bear more fruit.

 

[Ender]

I suspect that for some individuals an “intellectual” analysis of religion could end up inhibiting their faith but, as was observed earlier, a lot of what happens to the individual will depend on the assumptions he makes. The Church certainly sees no basis for concern from such an analysis, rather she encourages it.

Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God … hence there can be no contradiction between them … Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it. (Fides et Ratio)

*To believe is nothing other than to think with assent … Believers are also thinkers: in believing, they think and in thinking, they believe… If faith does not think it is nothing. *(Ibid)

Ender