Religion & The Obligation of Faith

[Linux]

From a philosophical perspective, It is my position that if there is even a smallest possibility that a religion is false or untrue in some respect, then a rational being is not obligated to believe it.

Note that this is not an argument against having faith in something. This is an argument against the obligation of faith for fear of some kind of fret involving the judgement of their souls. I have always found it very convenient for a human to say that a judgement will befall those who choose not to believe in what believers hold dear to their hearts.

Do you have any counter-argument?

 

[Scoobyshme]

Different perspective: Life is about choices…and consequences of those choices.

We have freedom of choice, but not freedom of consequences.

When we die, we no longer have freedom of choice. God gives us that which we most love. If it is Him, then we go to heaven. If it is something else (not God) then we go to hell, because the difference is so tremendous.

That’s a big oversimplification, but for a forum, you can’t expect too much.

Since you like philosphy (a good thing!), you might enjoy a talk by a Catholic philosopher who teaches philosophy at Boston College, Dr. Peter Kreeft. Here’s one of his free talks:

peterkreeft.com/audio/29_lotr_fated-free.htm

 

[ThinkingSapien]

From a philosophical perspective, It is my position that if there is even a smallest possibility that a religion is false or untrue in some respect, then a rational being is not obligated to believe it…Do you have any counter-argument?

Not so much a counter argument. But some people (including myself) would part ways with your perspective at the concept of being obligated to believe because of belief not being seen as something that is completely voluntary. Choosing to believe something that doesn’t convince one’s self seemed akin to choosing to like the taste of a food that taste dis-pleasurable and causes intestinal distress.

I can relate to behaving as though something is believed (acting). At best when I’ve asked for explanations for volitional belief I received a description for what seemed to match self-deception. That’s something I’d like to avoid because of a self-imposed honest constraint.

 

[ColdComfort]

From a philosophical perspective, It is my position that if there is even a smallest possibility that a religion is false or untrue in some respect, then a rational being is not obligated to believe it.

Note that this is not an argument against having faith in something. This is an argument against the obligation of faith for fear of some kind of fret involving the judgement of their souls. I have always found it very convenient for a human to say that a judgement will befall those who choose not to believe in what believers hold dear to their hearts.

Do you have any counter-argument?

1. Does this only apply to religion? If so why not scientific or philosophic theories?
2. I suppose I should ask what smallest possibility means?

In general, Cardinal Newman talks about ‘converging and convincing reasons’ in arriving at faith. A combination of studying philosophy, science and history among other things. It is more like what happens in a criminal trial where a judge/jury considers ‘all the evidence’ before arriving at a conclusion that the defendant is guilty, or not, beyond all reasonable doubt. Perhaps the historical truth the Resurrection is open to the ‘smallest possibility’ of not being true; perhaps miracles and apparitions of Our Lady are open to the ‘smallest possibility’ of being untrue; perhaps natural theology is open to the same and so on. But consisdered altogether the ‘smallest possibilities’ disappear or should to a rational person.

Faith is a gift from God. But like other aspects of grace we must co-operate with the offered gift to receive it including the exercise of our reason. It perfects reason in so far as it gives us knowledge of truths which would otherwise be unknown to us but in no way is contrary to reason.

As for the ‘fret’ involved with the judgement of souls: if that is where the truth leads us it would be irrational to reject such a truth for that reason alone.

 

[belorg]

1. Does this only apply to religion? If so why not scientific or philosophic theories?

Nobody is obligated to accept any scientific theory. There is no ‘punishment’ is you don’t.

1. I suppose I should ask what smallest possibility means?

In general, Cardinal Newman talks about ‘converging and convincing reasons’ in arriving at faith. A combination of studying philosophy, science and history among other things. It is more like what happens in a criminal trial where a judge/jury considers ‘all the evidence’ before arriving at a conclusion that the defendant is guilty, or not, beyond all reasonable doubt. Perhaps the historical truth the Resurrection is open to the ‘smallest possibility’ of not being true; perhaps miracles and apparitions of Our Lady are open to the ‘smallest possibility’ of being untrue; perhaps natural theology is open to the same and so on. But consisdered altogether the ‘smallest possibilities’ disappear or should to a rational person.

I agree if the possibilities where really that small, any rational person should dismiss them.
But, in reality, the possibilities are for the most part inscrutable, and there is also evidence to the contrary to consider, so how big or how small exactly the possibilities are, is as yet unknowable.

What is true, however is
Faith is a gift from God. But like other aspects of grace we must co-operate with the offered gift to receive it including the exercise of our reason. It perfects reason in so far as it gives us knowledge of truths which would otherwise be unknown to us but in no way is contrary to reason.

As for the ‘fret’ involved with the judgement of souls: if that is where the truth leads us it would be irrational to reject such a truth for that reason alone.

Wouldn’t the fact that somebody ‘does not co-operate’ with this gift actually mean that he has not received this gift?

 

[fhansen]

I couldn’t believe until I could, well, believe. There are some decent arguments from reason for the existence of an uncreated creator but even if these arguments are valid, there’s less reason to believe that said creator is good, and no reason I’m aware of that faith in such a creator should necessarily be obligatory. However, the Christian faith claims that 1) God exists, and 2) lack of faith in and communion with this God is the reason for moral evil in this world with the injustice, harm, misery, disharmony, unnaturalness, and general unhappiness this results in. If the notion that human life as we experience it is lacking and disordered in some way resonates with us, then the notion that a better way, an, order that must be in some way superior to man, points us to the existence of a good Orderer. The idea is that man lacks full integrity without God; he’s lost, so to speak, and this is only rectified as he comes into communion with Him, a communion that can only begin with faith. To the extent this happens justice is restored as creation is aligned with the universal order again.

 

[Linux]

As for the ‘fret’ involved with the judgement of souls: if that is where the truth leads us it would be irrational to reject such a truth for that reason alone.

It would be irrational if we know hell exists. Do you know, or do you have faith in what you have been taught?

 

[Linux]

It is more like what happens in a criminal trial where a judge/jury considers ‘all the evidence’ before arriving at a conclusion that the defendant is guilty, or not, beyond all reasonable doubt.

In this analogy, we “know” that a crime “needs” to be solved, and therefore looking for evidence makes sense. If you don’t know if there is a hell or whether or not any particular religion is true, then you cannot rationally conclude that you have an obligation to know. Thus there is no obligation to seek out the knowledge of whether or not hell exists or if any particular religion is true, since in the first place such ideas are presented to you as statements of faith. Why should anybody in the first place consider the threat of hell as a real threat without knowledge of its existence?

 

[ColdComfort]

It would be irrational if we know hell exists. Do you know, or do you have faith in what you have been taught?

As explained above I believe the Christian Revelation to be true beyond any serious doubt. Therefore I know hell exists with a certitude no scientific or philosopic theory could have as it is a truth revealed to us by God.

 

[ColdComfort]

In this analogy, we “know” that a crime “needs” to be solved, and therefore looking for evidence makes sense. If you don’t know if there is a hell or whether or not any particular religion is true, then you cannot rationally conclude that you have an obligation to know. Thus there is no obligation to seek out the knowledge of whether or not hell exists or if any particular religion is true, since in the first place such ideas are presented to you as statements of faith. Why should anybody in the first place consider the threat of hell as a real threat without knowledge of its existence?

“All men desire to know”. So sayeth Aristotle. I would also add that other Greek truth that all men desire happiness. In order to obtain happiness you must know what will make you happy. To be happy then requires knowing the truth.

 

[Qoeleth]

I think there is a distinction between ‘religious faith’ and ‘rational accepting of a proposition’. A person has ‘religious faith’ if they live as if something were true. In this sense, it is a quasi-belief. Rationally, any Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist) must admit that there is a reasonable chance it is all false. But, it seems to be a good way of living- so they ‘believe in believing’. Better to have some hope than no hope.

I don’t think Christ ever present obligation for ‘absolute rational conviction’. Indeed, that would be changing ‘faith’ to ‘certain knowledge’. And ‘certain knowledge’ is as much tha anti-thesis of faith as absolute disbelief.

 

[Linux]

“All men desire to know”. So sayeth Aristotle. I would also add that other Greek truth that all men desire happiness. In order to obtain happiness you must know what will make you happy. To be happy then requires knowing the truth.

Whether or not people have a natural tendency to desire knowledge in general (He is not speaking about a particular kind of knowledge, but rather about our desire to know things), is irrelevant to this discussion. Also you assume that if desire exists, then so must its fulfilment. Also a lack of God clearly does not mean a lack of happiness since it appears that there are atheists that are happy.

 

[Linux]

As explained above I believe the Christian Revelation to be true beyond any serious doubt. Therefore I know hell exists with a certitude no scientific or philosopic theory could have as it is a truth revealed to us by God.

You have faith, which is not the same thing as knowing something to be true. If you mean something else, perhaps you can explain.

 

[fordhamstudent]

Natural theology tells us that we can know through the light of natural reason that a deity exists. It was necessary that Deity reveal itself in order for us to come into a relationship with it. God or Deity revealed Himself through the Prophets of the Old Testament and when the fullness of time had come became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ Who became incarnate in the womb of Mary thus revealed not only that God exists, but also the Persons of the Trinity and established the Catholic Church as the way to participate in the Divine Life of the Trinity. Philosophy can only speculate about the existence or non-existence of a deity, its concern is not with the ontological validity of religious organizations.

It is the teaching of Jesus Christ that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church He founded, the Catholic Church–he did not say that the men governing the Church would not fall into error or that there would never be theological disputes in the Church. Supernatural knowledge of the existence of Trinity or the authenticity of the Catholic religion is confirmed by reason, but is not born by it–the Holy Spirit in the believer confirms the truth of the Catholic faith and religion. Again, if a philosopher were to speculate that the Church or a religious organization, who claimed to have the fullness of truth, through his own private judgment, had an admixture of truth and error–it would not pertain to theological truth, but only to an assessment of being in relation to beings if the philosopher asserted that beingness was a metaphysical reality per se. The dynamic power of the Catholic faith with those philosophers and atheists who have come into her bosom was that they discovered that not only was the Catholic faith validated by reason, but that it also had the unique power to transform the mind through the Spirit so that one could understand and participate in the Mysteries which God has deigned to reveal to men, namely the Sacraments.

Those who leave the Catholic religion assert that it has violated truth and morality and thus claim to find within it a logical reason for rejecting it, but it is not our reason and intellect which can judge the Catholic religion–we are bound to it and belong to it because of the will of the Lord–who has called us out of many nations to be His People. He has chosen us and not we Him. Jesus Christ supernaturally brought about His Church and all the people of the world are called to be attached to Her and belong to Her in actuality and true communion.

The intellect which rejects communion with the Catholic Church is darkened and desires not repentance, but rebellion–a rebellion which comes from the Evil One himself. So many who have rebelled against the Church in their intellect have come back at their deathbeds to the Church through the ministrations of a Catholic priest. Speculations of these kind only lead to nowhere–only within the Church can the philosopher’s mind reach the fullest potential and only in the Church can their souls be fed, nourished, and filled with divine light.

 

[ColdComfort]

You have faith, which is not the same thing as knowing something to be true. If you mean something else, perhaps you can explain.

Faith is a very misunderstood word. In english, historically protestant, it often means a subjective or blind belief in a proposition. As the children’s song goes, “… because the Bible tells me so”.

1. Faith is rational for the reasons I summarized above.
2. Once I accept Christian Revelation there are propositions that can be understood rationally and some that can not but all have equal certitude.
3. The existence of Hell is a proposition then of absolute certitude. There are things about hell that I cannot know but its existence is not subject to reasonable doubt.

Faith involves not only the rational acceptance of Revelation but also the conversion, literally turning the face, of the whole person. How he orders his life. To repeat myself Faith perfects reason; they are not opposed.

But I don’t know where you are going with this thread. An atheist thinks he knows the truth. So what? Why do you say:

“Note that this is not an argument against having faith in something. This is an argument against the obligation of faith for fear of some kind of fret involving the judgement of their souls.”

If all you’re saying is we shouldn’t believe only because of a fear of going to hell then, of course, I agree.

 

[Linux]

Natural theology tells us that we can know through the light of natural reason that a deity exists… Philosophy can only speculate about the existence or non-existence of a deity, its concern is not with the ontological validity of religious organizations.

Perhaps it is true that religion cannot be confirmed rationally, and that puts it in a bit of a weak position in so far as convincing others of its validity.

It is the teaching of Jesus Christ that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church He founded, the Catholic Church–he did not say that the men governing the Church would not fall into error or that there would never be theological disputes in the Church.

None of this is relevant to this discussion

Supernatural knowledge of the existence of Trinity or the authenticity of the Catholic religion is confirmed by reason, but is not born by it–the Holy Spirit in the believer confirms the truth of the Catholic faith and religion.

This mystical form of knowledge caused by something supernatural is claimed by other religions and their believers, just in difference ways. Personally I don’t know what it means for the holy spirit to confirm anything. Unless somebody experiences what you are talking about, there is no reason to take what you are saying seriously.

Again, if a philosopher were to speculate that the Church or a religious organization, who claimed to have the fullness of truth, through his own private judgement, had an admixture of truth and error–it would not pertain to theological truth, but only to an assessment of being in relation to beings if the philosopher asserted that beingness was a metaphysical reality per se.

I am not sure why you felt the need to say this here. These are just statements of faith. It is your faith that if somebody says something contrary to the church that it is necessarily false because according to your faith divine revelation cannot be false. Just like its your faith that keeps you believing even when doubt tells you to stop believing, or tells you there is something not reasonable about this. I see no authority in what you have said here, only what you desire to be true.

The dynamic power of the Catholic faith with those philosophers and atheists who have come into her bosom was that they discovered that not only was the Catholic faith validated by reason,

I thought that it is not the role of philosophy to validate religion?

but that it also had the unique power to transform the mind through the Spirit so that one could understand and participate in the Mysteries which God has deigned to reveal to men, namely the Sacraments.

Other people have claimed to be spiritually transformed through other religious disciplines.

Those who leave the Catholic religion assert that it has violated truth and morality and thus claim to find within it a logical reason for rejecting it, but it is not our reason and intellect which can judge the Catholic religion–

According to your faith or some kind of mystical knowledge that allows you doubt.

we are bound to it and belong to it because of the will of the Lord–who has called us out of many nations to be His People. He has chosen us and not we Him. Jesus Christ supernaturally brought about His Church and all the people of the world are called to be attached to Her and belong to Her in actuality and true communion.

Again, this is according to your religious beliefs which you have asserted to be true.

The intellect which rejects communion with the Catholic Church is darkened and desires not repentance, but rebellion–a rebellion which comes from the Evil One himself.

This is all very convenient and quite frankly insulting. So according to your faith Reason is not good, but is instead the sign of a rebellious mind and we should simply approach as true what ever happens to inspire you. In the market place of religious ideas you would prefer us to come to the Catholic church because that is what happens to inspire you. And anyone who rationally challenges the faith is of devil.

I really hope that you are misrepresenting the Catholic Faith, because this attitude has very cult like qualities. Its covered all the bases that could possibly lead to somebody questioning their religious beliefs by inducing a pathological fear about going to hell if their reasoning does not comply with dogma or if they do not blindly accept dogma. Ironically, we would not accept that from other religions and allow our children to be exposed to it.

A truly healthy organisation welcomes criticism and reason; it does not condemn it.

So many who have rebelled against the Church in their intellect have come back at their deathbeds to the Church through the ministrations of a Catholic priest. Speculations of these kind only lead to nowhere–only within the Church can the philosopher’s mind reach the fullest potential and only in the Church can their souls be fed, nourished, and filled with divine light.

According to your faith.

 

[fordhamstudent]

It is clear that you are on a Catholic forum asking Catholics to convince you through mere reason alone of the truth of the Church. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. If you do not care for the more religious language in dealing with this issue, I wonder what your agenda is here. Are you open to the possibility of faith or are you solidified in your positions? It is clear you want to bait Catholics here with your questions and thus spending days debating with you will not lead you to the Catholic faith or to any good fruit. Philosophy per se cannot determine if a religious organization is true and has no patience with the subjective mystical dimension of religious experience. The Catholic Church asserts that one can have an experience with the living God which confirms the teaching of the religion Christ founded. To the modern secular person what Catholics believe about the incarnation is ridiculous–that God could become man and save us from our sins. The Church values faith and reason, but not reason divorced from faith and what you want is to prove without faith through mere philosophy (you have not described your philosophical perspective or your sources) that the Catholic Church is true. The intellect is the servant of God and not His master and the post-Enlightenment philosophical systems which have led countless generations away from God have demonstrated empirically that they only destroy lives and do not give true meaning and purpose to human life. What you want is to convince Catholics of the error of their positions and no be in real dialogue with them. I have no patience for that.

 

[Linux]

It is clear that you are on a Catholic forum asking Catholics to convince you through mere reason alone of the truth of the Church.

No actually. I am discussing about what “obligation” one has to take any religion seriously especially if reason is not the bases for assessing so called religious truth. I go even further to say that without certainty of religious truth, I see no good reason for a person to feel morally obligated to make lifestyle sacrifices for a religious life, simply because even the smallest possibility of a religion not being true could mean that we are wasting our lives and time better spent doing something else. I for one would not want to waste my time being a part of any religion if there so called revelation or scripture does not reflect objective reality.

Obviously I don’t agree that the threat of unhappiness or hell, given by some Christians toward non-believers, is a good enough bases for atheists to feel obligated to become Christian or join any religious organisation. There is no rational reason for them to feel guilty about their unbelief or take any threat toward their souls seriously.

Without certainty of religious truth, the only bases I can see for someone’s religious conviction is either because life has been unfortunate to them, the fear of death, or because they have had a road to Damascus experience like saint Paul. I became a Catholic many years ago because life has been unfortunate to me. But for me that can no-longer be a satisfying reason to be a part of a religious organisation, especially if its activities are questionable.

I do however believe that there is a rational bases to think that there is such a thing as moral truth and God.

 

[fordhamstudent]

During the priest scandals many Catholics like yourself left the Church because they saw the horrendous actions committed by priests as a sign the Church was not what it claimed to be namely, the Bride of Christ. During the time of the Reformation the same issues within the Catholic Church also drove people into disbelief or Protestant Churches. Frankly, it is hard to be Catholic in the 21st Century and is a joy and a burden. I myself went through a period were I almost left the Church because of the seeming contradiction caused by the abuse scandals and the doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility, but the Gospels are there to instruct us that even when Peter committed the act similar to Judas in denying Christ nevertheless he was made Prince of the Apostles through the mercy and forgiveness of Christ. The Church since the beginning has had immoral men in Her midst, but She keeps moving forward doing the will of Christ and bringing people into the Kingdom of God in every generation.

I would love to go back to my old sinful ways and be a law unto myself. Every day I think about the old life I had, but if it was not for my experience with the living Christ I would do so. It is hard to give up the former ways and there might be a fear in the back of everyone’s mind that they are hidden fools in following a Church which has such rampant sin in Her members, but Someone within calls us back to Her nonetheless. I have even been hurt by members of the Church and felt at times that I should throw in the towel, but I return to the Church in spite of my weakness.

 

[ColdComfort]

Perhaps it is true that religion cannot be confirmed rationally, and that puts it in a bit of a weak position in so far as convincing others of its validity.

None of this is relevant to this discussion

What exactly is the discussion about?

This is all very convenient and quite frankly insulting. So according to your faith Reason is not good, but is instead the sign of a rebellious mind and we should simply approach as true what ever happens to inspire you. In the market place of religious ideas you would prefer us to come to the Catholic church because that is what happens to inspire you. And anyone who rationally challenges the faith is of devil.

I really hope that you are misrepresenting the Catholic Faith, because this attitude has very cult like qualities. Its covered all the bases that could possibly lead to somebody questioning their religious beliefs by inducing a pathological fear about going to hell if their reasoning does not comply with dogma or if they do not blindly accept dogma. Ironically, we would not accept that from other religions and allow our children to be exposed to it.

I don’t think the poster you’re responding to said anything like this but I’ll let him or her answer.

As far as I can tell your thread has two points:

1. Catholic Faith is irrational, by which I mean not supported by reason, and
2. When challenged by reason it uses a threat of eternal punishment to coerce it’s adherents.

You are wrong on both counts. I would suggest you buy a copy of the CCC or any introductory book on Catholic belief like “Catholicism for Dummies”