Faith without reason. How far is to far?

[MindOverMatter2]

If somebody proved to us with absolute certainty that the Christian idea of God is a fundamentally irrational concept, would you still remain a Catholic by faith?

If so, why?

 

[edward_george]

First off, how could you prove that God is a “fundamentally irrational idea?” What would such a proof look like? Your question rests on the assumption that the idea of God is either rational or irrational (and it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the existence of God is *not *in conflict with reason), and that it is possible that someone could prove with certainty that it was not a rational idea (which I would dispute, since you cannot prove a negative). How could you prove anything to be a “fundamentally irrational idea?”

-ACEGC

 

[Della]

The only way the idea of God could be thought (not proved) irrational is if we had no evidence of anything beyond our physical senses. For that let’s read C. S. Lewis’ Puddleglum’s answer to the Lady of the Green Kirtle, who claimed that all that existed was her underground realm (from “The Silver Chair”):

“‘One word, Ma’am,’ he said… 'One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things–trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Supose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”

What stands against the seemingly rational objections to faith in God is joy–the kind the world cannot give no matter how hard it tries. Falling in love, having one’s first child, accomplishing all of one’s goals in life are wonderful things, but they aren’t eternal joy. Only faith in God gives us that.

 

[smichhertz]

It kind of sounds like you answer your own question. You are basically asking “If you were convinced that something was false would you still believe it?”

Well, obviously, I can’t believe in something if I don’t believe it. Maybe you could rephrase?

 

[po18guy]

If somebody proved to us with absolute certainty that the Christian idea of God is a fundamentally irrational concept, would you still remain a Catholic by faith?

If so, why?

I used to do this in my '61 Chevy. It’s called burning doughnuts. The intent was to create a perfect circle. You may have just done that.

All seriousness aside, our civilization is predicated upon belief in God. Our laws, our cultural and societal norms derive from what man has learned through revelation. God Himself taught us that we shall not kill atheists. Since no one else will ever teach that (except atheists, and they cannot give a good reason), better to stick with God, huh?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First off, how could you prove that God is a “fundamentally irrational idea?” What would such a proof look like? Your question rests on the assumption that the idea of God is either rational or irrational (and it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the existence of God is *not *in conflict with reason), and that it is possible that someone could prove with certainty that it was not a rational idea (which I would dispute, since you cannot prove a negative). How could you prove anything to be a “fundamentally irrational idea?”

-ACEGC

Why have you felt the need to find error in my question as if to say i am making an argument? Surely you could see that i was expressing a hypothetical situation and not an argument against God. Could you not entertain the possibility for the sake of the OP?

The question is not can Gods existence be dis-proven; the question is what would you do if the idea of God was found to be fundementally irrational.

The problem i find is that some Christians would not see this as a problem and would probably try to sight scripture in the attempt to show me that God is able to do impossible things and that therefore logical limits cannot be applied to God.

But is it reasonable to expect people to have faith in such a being?

Thus i wanted to see what role reason plays in the lives of the Christians that come to this forum, and where they will draw the line concerning the things they are willing believe.

Does reason matter to you?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

All seriousness aside, our civilization is predicated upon belief in God. Our laws, our cultural and societal norms derive from what man has learned through revelation. God Himself taught us that we shall not kill atheists. Since no one else will ever teach that (except atheists, and they cannot give a good reason), better to stick with God, huh?

So you are saying that if the irrational concept of God is necessary for a better world, that therefore it would be better to promote something irrational and comforting (effectively pulling the wool of peoples eyes) if it could avert some great tragedy?

So God would effectively be a mass placebo?

Would i therefore be correct in saying that, in your eyes, reason has no relevance to faith, and that faith is always more important than reason given the ills of our social and existential situation?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It kind of sounds like you answer your own question. You are basically asking “If you were convinced that something was false would you still believe it?”

Well, obviously, I can’t believe in something if I don’t believe it. Maybe you could rephrase?

Not all people equate irrational with the word “false”. Some people are willing to believe in that which they know to be irrational.

 

[Jim_Baur]

This is really delicate!

I hope people do not attack. I am trying to explain. It is really difficult material and I am only human.

I am not sure if my ideas address your post, but I am going to try.

There are arguments from Jews, Christians and Moslems that argue for the existence of God. We cannot prove that there is a God. It is faith–faith is not proof!

Next, our Jewish and Christian arguments stop at the “creation” or the physical world and our spiritual existence.

All of the ideas that the Bible puts forth and our philosophers argue fall infinitely short of describing God.

After we accept creation as revealed to Moses, may his memory be blessed, the Scriptures ascribe to the Lord characteristics that the creator of all must have, after looking at the finished product. We cannot observe or perceive God. It must be the finished product, and this is based on a revelation and faith.

The Lord does not have many attributes. The Lord does not have any attributes. He IS.

However, the Biblical characteristics attributed to the Lord still fall infinitely short. As far as I know the Catholic Church teaches this as do many Jews. This is not a well know teaching, however.

Bottom line–We believe. We cannot prove God’s existence. We have good arguments, but that is not proof. We do call them proofs. We are well aware that they are arguments, as we call these arguments proof.

To the OP, I am not attacking but trying to explain what I understand to be the correct teaching about the proofs for the existence of the Lord.

Thank you!

 

[po18guy]

So you are saying that if the irrational concept of God is necessary for a better world, that therefore it would be better to promote something irrational and comforting (effectively pulling the wool of peoples eyes) if it could avert some great tragedy? Just by the numbers, atheists are irrational. They fail to seriously consider or investigate the faith that is held by the vast majority of their fellow humans. Faiths of all types, occurring amongst all races and in all cultures. So, are atheists the most arrogant of all humans? By judging the majority of their follow humans as being somehow irrational, it would appear so.
MindOverMatter2;7614480:

So God would effectively be a mass placebo?

You may believe this already. You directly benefit from a world which runs according to the laws that God revealed for man. If not for the laws prohibiting most murder, you would have been killed long ago by someone who disagreed with you. We all would have been. Is that irrational?

Would i therefore be correct in saying that, in your eyes, reason has no relevance to faith, and that faith is always more important than reason given the ills of our social and existential situation?

Why do you force this into an either/or equation? Those of faith know that faith and reason go hand in hand. Faith appears to lack reason only to those who have no faith.

Do you comfort yourself only with those reasons which direct away form faith?

 

[Della]

Perhaps you haven’t had time to respond to my post, but I was not being an emotional female in my conclusion that joy is the ultimate “proof” that belief in God is indeed rational. Better people than I have put forward this idea, the most important being Christ himself.

We do not believe in spite of reason. Rather reason itself tells us that the purpose of human existence is happiness/joy. And it is not unreasonable to point out that there is no ultimate joy in this life–that’s merely stating a fact. It is joy that kept Christ on the road to Calvary and it is joy, which is actually union with God, that tells us there is more than this life and Someone beyond ourselves.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

This looks like another of MindOverMatter’s attempts to show how necessary are the philosophical arguments that “prove” God’s existence (and not just a vague deistic god, but philosophical arguments that “prove” the God of the Bible exists!). I’m really not sure how the Saint Paul, or Athanasius, or Augustine, or Catherine of Seina, or Francis de Sales, or Thérèse of Lisieux, or John of the Cross, or Teresa of Avila, or Padre Pio, or a couple of thousand other saints down through the centuries ever had faith without the “proofs” of William Lane Craig’s Kalam Argument or any of the other modern “proofs” that MOM seems to think are absolutely vital to a “Reasonable Faith”.

 

[donsnow]

If somebody proved to us with absolute certainty that the Christian idea of God is a fundamentally irrational concept, would you still remain a Catholic by faith?

If so, why?

Hi, MindOverMatter,

Give it some time and the psychiatric field of the medical arts may just make that ruling without any proof.

God loves you,
Don

 

[po18guy]

This looks like another of MindOverMatter’s attempts to show how necessary are the philosophical arguments that “prove” God’s existence (and not just a vague deistic god, but philosophical arguments that “prove” the God of the Bible exists!).

Yes, MoM2 has great faith (that there is no God). I only wish I had such faith!

 

[donsnow]

Perhaps you haven’t had time to respond to my post, but I was not being an emotional female in my conclusion that joy is the ultimate “proof” that belief in God is indeed rational. Better people than I have put forward this idea, the most important being Christ himself.

We do not believe in spite of reason. Rather reason itself tells us that the purpose of human existence is happiness/joy. And it is not unreasonable to point out that there is no ultimate joy in this life–that’s merely stating a fact. It is joy that kept Christ on the road to Calvary and it is joy, which is actually union with God, that tells us there is more than this life and Someone beyond ourselves.

Hi, Della,

It’s taking me a long time to go from the concept of isolation is holiness, to that holiness is pure joy.
There is no joy in isolation.

God loves you,
Don

 

[po18guy]

Hi, Della,

It’s taking me a long time to go from the concept of isolation is holiness, to that holiness is pure joy.
There is no joy in isolation.

God loves you,
Don

We are not called to isolation, but rather to being “set apart”. Jesus calls us to be in the world, but not of the world. I see a big difference.

 

[donsnow]

We are not called to isolation, but rather to being “set apart”. Jesus calls us to be in the world, but not of the world. I see a big difference.

Hi, po18guy,

You’re right.

God loves you,
Don

 

[JDaniel]

If somebody proved to us with absolute certainty that the Christian idea of God is a fundamentally irrational concept, would you still remain a Catholic by faith?

If so, why?

MoM2:

Startling question, monsieur. The dialectical inductions that result in the primary prerequisites for a valid science of nature are not material, i.e., not from matter, although they are physical. E.g., Aquinas’ five ways depend, preliminarily, upon just such dialectics. These inductions help the mind to pass from particular to universal propositions without going through the customary middle terms of logical syllogisms. The products of such inductions will be propositions whose subject and predicate are immediately connected with each other. We call these “self-evident,” while some call them “intuitive.” In a sense, they are intuitive. All humans propose and draw conclusions from these sorts of inductions hundreds of times every day, AND don’t give their veracity another thought. Examples abound, so, I won’t waste your time. (If you want some, let me know.) From those purely logical inductions, Aquinas arrives at Five Ways, i.e., proofs, as it were, that lead to terms that clearly lead to conclusions the antitheses of which are sheer nonsense.

That said, the Five Ways, along with Anselm’s proposition, if fully and correctly grasped, will lead the mind to the reasonable conclusion of a First Cause, Prime Mover, necessary being, the sane groundings for each of the categories we attribute, through our perceptions and our languages, to being, and that for the sake of which the agent, or efficient cause, acts. However, these do not lead us to Our God. They merely lead us to a god-like entity that fills the vacancy. Faith, then, is that which permits us the luxury of juxtaposing both concepts, side by side, as we might say, into One God whom we should worship. Otherwise, without Faith, we have a world of wretchedness and unspeakable horror, with no hope of human salvation.

Our beings are inextricably involved with our salvific hopes for the future. No matter how good you seem to be - at this very moment - think retrospectively of the each of the unforgivable event(s) you were the instigator of, in times past, that you have merely suppressed. Notice: that I used the second person (singular and plural), rather than the third person (plural), or the first person (singular or plural). Isn’t that what we do? Don’t we assuage our guilt by comparing? Or, by some other rationalization? Who goes to their grave in the condition of purity? No one does.

Now, often the offenses we commit, while they might not be gravely heinous, are sufficiently wretched that each and every one of us hopes to either undo what we did, or at least be forgiven for what we did, before we take our last breaths. I need a God - and so do each of you - who will forgive me if I undergo a catharsis at my own instantiation. To send God to oblivion before accomplishing what was instantiated, does not help. This, then, is what I have Faith in: that the Prime Mover/First Cause is, in fact, the only exigency that will, if I entreat him to do so, blessedly forgive. The Catholic Church was given the form, the ritual, if you will, the methodology proscribed by God, and if I have faith in Divine Revelation, I can know before my departure that I am forgiven. My survival dynamic will keep me alive (generally) long enough to suffer greatly, or short enough to know the bliss of departure without regret(s).

So, yes, I would remain a Catholic by Faith, and it would not be annihilated by a proof that the idea of God was

God bless,
jd

 

[Windfish]

If somebody proved to us with absolute certainty that the Christian idea of God is a fundamentally irrational concept, would you still remain a Catholic by faith?

If so, why?

That would be per impossible, though, so I cannot imagine my reaction other than to think that such a “proof” has gone wrong somewhere.

 

[po18guy]

That would be per impossible, though, so I cannot imagine my reaction other than to think that such a “proof” has gone wrong somewhere.

Notice how the proposition is so craftily worded so as to condemn as “irrational” those who would remain in faith? We have more positive proofs for God than he has negatives, yet his faith in nothing remains unshaken.