The Ascent of Reason via the Assent of Reason

[prodigalson2011]

This is a rough draft of something I’ve been working on. It’s not intended to be a conclusive argument, but a synopsis of the many logical steps that can lead one to the Catholic faith beginning with nothing more than Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum.”

It needs some polishing, so any thoughts, opinions, feedback, questions, suggestions (whether alterations, additions or subtractions) are welcomed, encouraged and greatly appreciated.

*“The Ascent of Reason via the Assent of Reason”

1. Human reason assents to its own existence. Descartes.
2. Reason assents to the correspondence of the external world to itself. Intelligence finds intelligibility in even the unintelligent.
3. Reason recognizes that there are only three possible explanations for the order it observes: chance, necessity or design.
4. Reason weighs these options against the full bulk of the data and, dismissing chance on the grounds of fundamental complexity and necessity on a total lack of logical support, concludes that design is the most cogent explanation.
5. Reason assents to design and thus asserts that the creative force behind the universe is a designing mind.
6. Reason discerns, through a process of deduction, what the properties of such a mind must be (eternal, omnipotent, unchanging, unmovable, immaterial, perfectly good, etc.) Aquinas’ five ways.
7. Reason asks whether this mind has communicated itself to us in any direct fashion.
8. Reviewing the history of all religion, reason recognizes these very properties in the theistic God: the God of Abraham. “I am who am.”
9. Reason further recognizes a unique combination of historicity, continuity and logical consistency in the sacred texts of the Jews; such a combination it does not find in other religions.
10. Reason embraces the God of the Jews as its creator.
11. Reason discovers a continuing theme of messianic prophecy running throughout Jewish scripture.
12. Reason recognizes the fulfillment of these prophecies, spanning over 1500 years, in the historical personage of Jesus Christ.
13. Reason discerns the historical validity of the New Testament. The factors of contemporaneity and locality lend credence to the historicity of the events described therein. Numerous other historical criteria (e.g. the criterion of embarrassment) are recognized within the text as well. Secular historical references close the case.
14. Reason realizes that, once having admitted the historicity of Christ and his ministry, there are only three possibilities: a) he was a deceiver, b) he was insane or c) he was speaking the truth. C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic”.
15. Reason eliminates Possibility A. A deceiver acts with intent to manipulate others to achieve personal gain. Christ’s teaching is morally sound and selfless, and the only earthly reward he obtains is ridicule and, ultimately, execution.
16. Reason eliminates Possibility B. Again, Christ’s teaching is morally sound and logically consistent. There is no indication of insanity.
17. Reason sees no alternative to accepting Possibility C. Though still a difficult leap, reason is aided in this concession by the accumulated evidence of prophecy and testimony in both word and martyrdom.
18. Reason thus recognizes Jesus Christ as the human incarnation of the God of Abraham.
19. Reason follows the historical record from the time of Christ forward and recognizes the continuance of His teaching through the Apostles and their appointed successors. This historical chain remains unbroken from the foundation of the Church by Christ upon St. Peter to the present day. Reason clearly sees that this Church is the Catholic Church.
20. Reason, having discerned first, to the extent humanly possible, the nature of God and second the Godhood of Jesus Christ, knows that God, by his very nature, cannot lie. Reason thus knows that Christ’s promise to St. Peter to protect His Church from a) dissolution and b) teaching moral error is trustworthy.
21. Reason sees this promise confirmed by the fact that a) the Catholic Church has outlived every other earthly institution–not only surviving but thriving, despite the factor of human corruption and constant assaults from both within and without–and b) the teaching of the Catholic Church has remained unchanged for the 2,000 years of its existence, in stark contrast to every later branch of Christianity.
22. Reason is further swayed by the persuasive, if not conclusive, evidence of various scientifically investigated miracles and apparitions: the Shroud of Turin, the Eucharistic miracles, the Sudarium of Oviedo, Fatima, Lourdes, cases of stigmata, the healings of Padre Pio, etc.
23. Reason is moved yet more by the testimony of the lives of the saints. Reason recognizes that behind such profoundly holy people must be a profound philosophy.
24. Reason, having been relieved of any sufficient reason to do otherwise, accepts the Catholic faith.*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is a rough draft of something I’ve been working on. It’s not intended to be a conclusive argument, but a synopsis of the many logical steps that can lead one to the Catholic faith beginning with nothing more than Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum.”

I think I would simply say, " This is a rough draft of something I’ve been working on. It’s not intended to be a conclusive argument, but a synopsis of the many logical steps that can lead one to the Catholic. " I would not base any of my argument on Descartes, some regard him as a rather pathetic and hopeless philosopher.

“The Ascent of Reason via the Assent of Reason”

A little ambiguous. I think I would have a title something like, " The Journey from Reason to Faith. "

1. Human reason assents to its own existence. Descartes.

I would drop any reference to Descartes.

1. Reason assents to design and thus asserts that the creative force behind the universe is a designing mind.

I would simply say that, " Reason assents to the evident design in the universe and thus asserts that there must be a designing mind responsible for this order. "

1. Reason asks whether this mind has communicated itself to us in any direct fashion.

I would change this to something like, " Reason discovers that others are claiming that there exists a Being which is such a designer and this Being is the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. "

I would add here a step somewhere saying something like, " Reason is persuaded by the uniqueness of the the events in both the Old and New Testaments and the uniqueness of the mysteries involved and the uniqueness of the moral teaching involved that these books represent a Divine Revelation because such uniqueness is beyond human imagination. "

1. Reason sees no alternative to accepting Possibility C. Though still a difficult leap, reason is aided in this concession by the accumulated evidence of prophecy and testimony in both word and martyrdom.

I think you should clarify your references to martydom here. It is well known, for example, that many heretics were quite willing to suffer death in the persecutions which raged on for the first 400 years of Christianity. Although it must be said that they died for refusing to deny God as the Creator and Father of all. And I don’t know of any atheists who have died rather than admit there was a God.

• It looks good to me. It should spark some lively debate.

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

I have no problem with the original post until we get to number 7

1. Reason asks whether this mind has communicated itself to us in any direct fashion.

Well, then, how do we get to believing in the Bible?

For me, it’s the completeness of the theology in the Bible, which had to be beyond the understanding of the Old Testament writers, and the New Testament writers too who we know weren’t geniuses but rather ordinary men.
The completeness of the theology is most clearly shown in Aquinas’s writings. His ideas all fit together. The Scripture writer’s ideas all fit together perfectly too. How did they do that thousands of years ago, when it’s likely they weren’t even aware of each other’s writings?

I conclude that the Bible is Divine Revelation, and the Catholic Church most faithfully adheres to it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I have no problem with the original post until we get to number 7

Well, then, how do we get to believing in the Bible?

Hmm. I don’t understand your objection. The very next step is recognizing that “this mind” (God) has revealed Himself to the Jews, who in turn, through His inspiration and guidance, have passed that revelation on to us in form of the Bible, which is utterly unique among religious texts. Thus, we move from asking whether God has revealed Himself to recognizing that, indeed, He has, and that one of the ways in which He has done so is through the Bible.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Hmm. I don’t understand your objection. The very next step is recognizing that “this mind” (God) has revealed Himself to the Jews, who in turn, through His inspiration and guidance, have passed that revelation on to us in form of the Bible, which is utterly unique among religious texts. Thus, we move from asking whether God has revealed Himself to recognizing that, indeed, He has, and that one of the ways in which He has done so is through the Bible.

Actually, reading back over it, I think I could have made this point clearer than I did in the OP. I’ll edit it and repost shortly. Thanks for your critique, empther.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think I would simply say, " This is a rough draft of something I’ve been working on. It’s not intended to be a conclusive argument, but a synopsis of the many logical steps that can lead one to the Catholic. " I would not base any of my argument on Descartes, some regard him as a rather pathetic and hopeless philosopher.

While I don’t agree with Descartes on everything, or even most of everything, I would hardly call him a pathetic philosopher. My argument isn’t really based on Descartes’ philosophy, but rather starts from the one proposition for which he is most famous: “I think, therefore I am.” That, in itself, is a completely unobjectionable argument which is not unique to his philosophy. He is just the most well known for it.

Also, this being an appeal to the modern rationalist mindset, I guess you could call my “namedropping” of Descartes a bit of sleight-of-hand concession. Start your argument from your opponent’s side.

A little ambiguous. I think I would have a title something like, " The Journey from Reason to Faith. "

Hmm. Being a huge fan of wordplay, I just don’t think I can let the original title go.

I would simply say that, " Reason assents to the evident design in the universe and thus asserts that there must be a designing mind responsible for this order. "

I think your wording is much better here. I will rework this particular part based on your phrasing.

I would change this to something like, " Reason discovers that others are claiming that there exists a Being which is such a designer and this Being is the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. "

Hmm. I’ll be keeping this in mind. I’d like to keep step 7 as is, but I’d also like to work this in somehow.

I would add here a step somewhere saying something like, " Reason is persuaded by the uniqueness of the the events in both the Old and New Testaments and the uniqueness of the mysteries involved and the uniqueness of the moral teaching involved that these books represent a Divine Revelation because such uniqueness is beyond human imagination. "

I think I’ve touched on these points, though in several different steps rather than one and with less emphasis on the moral and mystical dimensions and moreso on the historical and logical. I’ll keep this in mind, too, and try to find a way to touch more on these aspects within the arch and framework of this outline.

I think you should clarify your references to martydom here. It is well known, for example, that many heretics were quite willing to suffer death in the persecutions which raged on for the first 400 years of Christianity. Although it must be said that they died for refusing to deny God as the Creator and Father of all. And I don’t know of any atheists who have died rather than admit there was a God.

Yes, that particular line is one whose vagueness I wasn’t happy with. I’ll work on it, too.

• It looks good to me. It should spark some lively debate.

Linus2nd

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Linus2nd.

 

[prodigalson2011]

So here’s draft number 2, with a few revisions based on the (name removed by moderator)ut of empther and Linus2nd:

*1. Human reason assents to its own existence. Descartes.

1. Reason assents to the correspondence of the external world to itself. Intelligence finds intelligibility in even the unintelligent.

1. Reason recognizes that there are only three possible explanations for the order it observes: chance, necessity or design.

1. Reason weighs these options against the full bulk of the data and, dismissing chance on the grounds of fundamental complexity and necessity on a total lack of logical support, concludes that design is the most cogent explanation.

1. Reason assents to the evident design of the universe.

1. Reason recognizes that design is a product of thought, and thus asserts that the creative force behind that design must be a mind: a personal being.

1. Reason discerns, through a process of deduction, what the properties of such a being must be (eternal, omnipotent, unchanging, unmovable, immaterial, incorruptible, etc.: in a word, perfect) Aquinas’ five ways.

1. Reason asks whether this mind has communicated itself to us in any direct fashion.

1. Reviewing the history of all religion, reason recognizes the very properties discerned in step 6 in the theistic God: the God of Abraham. “I am who am.”

1. Reason further recognizes a unique combination of historicity, continuity, and both a moral and logical consistency in the sacred texts of the Jews; such a combination it does not find in other religions.

1. Following 9 and 10, reason decides that the answer to the question posed in step 8 is “Yes,” and that this communication has come in the form of Scripture. Reason thus embraces the God of the Jews as its creator.

1. Reason discovers a continuing theme of messianic prophecy running throughout Jewish scripture.

1. Reason recognizes the apparent fulfillment of these prophecies, spanning over 1500 years, in the historical personage of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament.

1. Reason discerns the historical validity of the New Testament. The factors of contemporaneity and locality lend credence to the historicity of the events described therein. Numerous other historical criteria (e.g. the criterion of embarrassment) are recognized within the text as well. Secular historical references close the case.

1. Reason realizes that, once having admitted the historicity of Christ and his ministry, there are only three possibilities: a) he was a deceiver, b) he was insane or c) he was speaking the truth. C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic”.

1. Reason eliminates Possibility A. A deceiver acts with intent to manipulate others to achieve personal gain. Christ’s teaching is morally perfect and selfless, and the only earthly reward he obtains is ridicule and, ultimately, execution.

1. Reason eliminates Possibility B. Again, Christ’s teaching is morally sound and logically consistent. There is no indication of insanity.

1. Reason sees no alternative to accepting Possibility C. Though still a difficult leap, reason is aided in this concession by the accumulated evidence of prophecy and the testimony of the Apostles in both word and martyrdom.

1. Reason thus recognizes Jesus Christ as the human incarnation of the God of Abraham.

1. Reason follows the historical record from the time of Christ forward and recognizes the continuance of His teaching through the Apostles and their appointed successors. This historical chain remains unbroken from the foundation of the Church by Christ upon St. Peter to the present day. Reason clearly sees that this Church is the Catholic Church.

1. Reason, having discerned first, to the extent humanly possible, the nature of God and second the Godhood of Jesus Christ, knows that God, by his very nature, cannot lie. Reason thus knows that Christ’s promise to St. Peter to protect His Church from a) dissolution and b) teaching moral error is trustworthy.

1. Reason sees the keeping of this promise confirmed by the fact that a) the Catholic Church has outlived every other earthly institution–not only surviving but thriving, despite the factor of human corruption and constant assaults from both within and without–and b) the teaching of the Catholic Church has remained unchanged for the 2,000 years of its existence, in stark contrast to every later branch of Christianity.

1. Reason is further swayed by the persuasive, if not conclusive, evidence of various scientifically investigated miracles and apparitions: the Shroud of Turin, the Eucharistic miracles, the Sudarium of Oviedo, Fatima, Lourdes, cases of stigmata, the healings of Padre Pio, etc.

1. Reason is moved yet more by the testimony of the lives of the saints. Reason recognizes that behind such profoundly holy people must lie a profound philosophy.

1. Reason, having been relieved of any sufficient reason to do otherwise, accepts the Catholic faith.*

A quick recap of the changes made so far:

Per Linus2nd’s suggestions, step 5 has been divided and expanded into two separate steps. Step 9 (formerly step 8) now adds the moral element to the uniqueness of Scripture. Step 18 (formerly step 17) now refers specifically to the testimony and martyrdom of the Apostles. More changes to come.

Per empther’s critique, step 11 (formerly step 10) has been expanded so as to make clear the connection between steps 8, 9 and 10 leading to the acceptance of Scripture.

 

[Flimmy]

Reason assents to the correspondence of the external world to itself. Intelligence finds intelligibility in even the unintelligent.

No…

 

[prodigalson2011]

No…

You deny that the universe is intelligible?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I didn’t state it in the OP, so I’d also like to add that non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-believers are all welcome and encouraged to voice objections or counterarguments.

 

[utunumsint]

I like the progression of thought. I find I can relate a great deal to the progress. Although in my own journey, I tended to discover different aspects of your progression in different orders, and different elements had more or less power to convince at different times.

Also, I would say, and I’m sure you would agree, that all of this provide preambles to faith, as the Catechism says. I still made a choice to believe at a certain point in the process.

What I find interesting is that some people come to faith without ever validating the rational grounds for their faith. Perhaps this was more the norm in a non-modern context. Now that we have so many educated people, it becomes harder to demonstrate the validity and rationality of my decision to choose faith in God. I had to go through all these intellectual steps on my own.

Some thoughts anyway.

God bless,
Ut

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther View Post
I have no problem with the original post until we get to number 7

Well, then, how do we get to believing in the Bible?

Hmm. I don’t understand your objection. The very next step is recognizing that “this mind” (God) has revealed Himself to the Jews,

Yeah, but how do we do that?

The Old Testament writers could have been a bunch of dreamers who were careful not to step on each other’s toes,
and the New Testament could have been written by a small group of men who carefully examined the Old Testament and wrote a story that “fulfilled” all the prophecies.

We have to look at what was said in the Bible and whether it was really possible for men to dream it up.

For example:
John 14:28

You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and bI will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because cI go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

And John 16:15

Everything that the Father has is mine

And John 1

1
In the beginning* was the Word,

and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.a
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3

• All things came to be through him,
  and without him nothing came to be.

How did John dream all this up?
If Jesus is less than the Father how can he have all that is the Father’s which would make him equal? Well of course it means that the Son proceeds from the Father but fully has the Divine Sunstance.

And how does Jesus proceed from the Father? He is the knowledge of the Father, but since the Father’s knowledge is infinite and only God can be infinite, the Son is God.

How did these fisherman, money changers and unemployed kids ( John ) come up with all this?

We could go on and on, and theologians have been doing so for the last two thousand years,
but you get the idea. Scripture can’t only be the invention of some imaginative men who never went to high school let alone college and didn’t even know each other or live at the same time. It has to be Divine Revelation.

We could

 

[tonyrey]

1. Human reason assents to its own existence. Descartes.

An alternative title:

Reason: From Assent to Ascent

1. Reason assents to the correspondence of the external world to itself.

“to itself” could refer to the world!

Intelligence finds intelligibility in even the unintelligent.

Important point. We recognise the absurd element in the physical world.

1. Reason recognizes that there are only three possible explanations for the order it observes: chance, necessity or design.

1. Reason weighs these options against the full bulk of the data and, dismissing chance on the grounds of fundamental complexity and necessity on a total lack of logical support, concludes that design is the most cogent explanation.

It is also the most fertile and consistent with the way we live.

1. Reason assents to the evident design of the universe.

1. Reason recognizes that design is a product of thought, and thus asserts that the creative force behind that design must be a mind: a personal being.

“a mind” seems too limited - although you clarify in your next section!

1. Reason discerns, through a process of deduction, what the properties of such a being must be (eternal, omnipotent, unchanging, unmovable, immaterial, incorruptible, etc.: in a word, perfect) Aquinas’ five ways.

The nature of perfection needs to be clarified.

1. Reason asks whether this mind has communicated itself to us in any direct fashion.

This is where the absence of love becomes evident.

1. Reviewing the history of all religion, reason recognizes the very properties discerned in step 6 in the theistic God: the God of Abraham. “I am who am.”

1. Reason further recognizes a unique combination of historicity, continuity, and both a moral and logical consistency in the sacred texts of the Jews; such a combination it does not find in other religions.

1. Following 9 and 10, reason decides that the answer to the question posed in step 8 is “Yes,” and that this communication has come in the form of Scripture. Reason thus embraces the God of the Jews as its creator.

The pure monotheism of Judaism is an outstanding feature.

1. Reason discovers a continuing theme of messianic prophecy running throughout Jewish scripture.

1. Reason recognizes the apparent fulfillment of these prophecies, spanning over 1500 years, in the historical personage of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament.

I think “apparent” is an understatement.

1. Reason discerns the historical validity of the New Testament. The factors of contemporaneity and locality lend credence to the historicity of the events described therein. Numerous other historical criteria (e.g. the criterion of embarrassment) are recognized within the text as well. Secular historical references close the case.

The criterion of embarrassment requires explanation.

1. Reason realizes that, once having admitted the historicity of Christ and his ministry, there are only three possibilities: a) he was a deceiver, b) he was insane or c) he was speaking the truth. C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic”.

1. Reason eliminates Possibility A. A deceiver acts with intent to manipulate others to achieve personal gain. Christ’s teaching is morally perfect and selfless, and the only earthly reward he obtains is ridicule and, ultimately, execution.

1. Reason eliminates Possibility B. Again, Christ’s teaching is morally sound and logically consistent. There is no indication of insanity.

1. Reason sees no alternative to accepting Possibility C. Though still a difficult leap, reason is aided in this concession by the accumulated evidence of prophecy and the testimony of the Apostles in both word and martyrdom.

The addition of “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” is confusing because the possibilities are not in the same order.

• 1. Reason thus recognizes Jesus Christ as the human incarnation of the God of Abraham.

1. Reason follows the historical record from the time of Christ forward and recognizes the continuance of His teaching through the Apostles and their appointed successors. This historical chain remains unbroken from the foundation of the Church by Christ upon St. Peter to the present day. Reason clearly sees that this Church is the Catholic Church.

1. Reason, having discerned first, to the extent humanly possible, the nature of God and second the Godhood of Jesus Christ, knows that God, by his very nature, cannot lie. Reason thus knows that Christ’s promise to St. Peter to protect His Church from a) dissolution and b) teaching moral error is trustworthy.

1. Reason sees the keeping of this promise confirmed by the fact that a) the Catholic Church has outlived every other earthly institution–not only surviving but thriving, despite the factor of human corruption and constant assaults from both within and without–and b) the teaching of the Catholic Church has remained unchanged for the 2,000 years of its existence, in stark contrast to every later branch of Christianity.

1. Reason is further swayed by the persuasive, if not conclusive, evidence of various scientifically investigated miracles and apparitions: the Shroud of Turin, the Eucharistic miracles, the Sudarium of Oviedo, Fatima, Lourdes, cases of stigmata, the healings of Padre Pio, etc.

1. Reason is moved yet more by the testimony of the lives of the saints. Reason recognizes that behind such profoundly holy people must lie a profound philosophy.

1. Reason, having been relieved of any sufficient reason to do otherwise, accepts the Catholic faith.*

Powerful arguments but the elements of truth, holiness and inspiration in other religions should not be excluded.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I like the progression of thought. I find I can relate a great deal to the progress. Although in my own journey, I tended to discover different aspects of your progression in different orders, and different elements had more or less power to convince at different times.

Care to share some differences? Which elements did you find most powerful? Did you go through any “steps” I didn’t mention?

Also, I would say, and I’m sure you would agree, that all of this provide preambles to faith, as the Catechism says. I still made a choice to believe at a certain point in the process.

Of course. Everyone does, whether theist or atheist. But I think we would also agree that the Church, to our reasoning, had the most persuasive evidence for its case; am I correct in assuming that?

What I find interesting is that some people come to faith without ever validating the rational grounds for their faith. Perhaps this was more the norm in a non-modern context. Now that we have so many educated people, it becomes harder to demonstrate the validity and rationality of my decision to choose faith in God. I had to go through all these intellectual steps on my own.

I agree completely. And while there are, I’m sure, many who embrace the faith in all its fullness without working through all the seeming “intellectual obstacles” to it, I can’t help but think that there is a correspondence between practicing a religion for the reason of cultural/family tradition or even a more respectable “true belief of the heart,” so to speak, and a weakening of the faith in general. In particular, when parents who have never questioned their faith and tried to understand its teachings beyond the simple explanation of, “Because God said so,” I think its almost un-debatable that their children will be much more prone to be led away from the faith. As Scripture says, “Love the Lord with all your mind, all your heart, and all your strength.” That suggests to me that an intellectual commitment, to whatever extent one is capable, is required of us. Believing with all one’s heart is a wonderful, admirable thing, but more is asked of us.

Some thoughts anyway.

Much appreciated!

 

[utunumsint]

Care to share some differences? Which elements did you find most powerful? Did you go through any “steps” I didn’t mention?

I think reason is attracted to truth and truth is beautiful and perfect, so there is an element of intellect and of attraction. Both go hand in hand. I think that attraction that truth exerts explain the motivation for reason’s journey. Everyone seeks after truth. Even the most ardent Atheist, and sometimes especially the most ardent Atheists. I am thinking, for example, of Anthony Flew as an example.

I suppose my entry point into an active intellectual understanding of my religion was through my studies of comparative religions and psychology as it applies to religion. It lead me to appreciate humanity’s inner life and inner structure. For example, Jung’s collective unconscious was an entry point to that I could apply to certain catholic understandings of human nature and the communion of saints. Maslov’s hierarchy of needs seemed, later on, to correspond to a certain degree to Plato and later Augustine’s understanding of humanity. At the very least, the idea that we have higher faculties that require different things to satisfy them showed me that we all have desires that need fulfilling, especially a desire for beauty and truth. Then William James, Viktor Frankl, and others enforced this view.

Behind all of this study lurked your question 8 I think.

1. Reason asks whether this mind has communicated itself to us in any direct fashion.

is our inner life simply an anthropomorphic reflection of our thoughts on an ultimately meaningless universe? It started me thinking about prayer and the possibility that our inner life is not so closed off as we might think. If our inner psychological structure seems designed to go beyond itself, if our needs constantly point to greater and greater levels of desire for beauty, and truth, and art, etc… could it not be that there is something external to our inner life that actually satisfies this desire, completely?

It became apparent to me that this study of the structure of human nature went far beyond psychology though. For example, my Jung and Freud teacher admitted that he had moved on from them to Hegel, to a more philosophically oriented approach. At this point, I entered into a classical studies program that introduced the foundations of western though. We studied Greek and Latin philosophers and historians.

I think history, occupied my time during that period - your points 9 to 14 I think. I learned all I could about the church fathers in the context of my study of Greek and Roman history and philosophy. Historical criticism was a real thorn in my side until I took a close look at their approach and realized that it excluded a lot of material as unhistorical that did not necessarily have to be excluded. At most, historical criticism could say there was not enough evidence to support the historicity of the virgin birth, but given the criteria for determining historicity, this would seem to be almost impossible to prove from a historical critical standpoint, but still could be true! And the same thing goes for many faith claims that exist in the Bible.

Of course. Everyone does, whether theist or atheist. But I think we would also agree that the Church, to our reasoning, had the most persuasive evidence for its case; am I correct in assuming that?

I think so. But there comes a point when you have to take the reasonableness of the case and spark up a relationship with an invisible world of angels, saints, devils, and demons, and God - in things that are unseen and not subject to materialistic and scientific investigation. You need more than proof at this stage. You need a leap. It is a reasonable leap, as far as I am concerned, but a leap none the less. Some people remain mired in what they know for sure and refuse to look beyond their limited horizon. I understand now that I can talk to such people about the reasonableness of my faith till I am blue, but they will not take that leap based on my reasons and will accept pretty much anything else that justifies their choice.

I agree completely. And while there are, I’m sure, many who embrace the faith in all its fullness without working through all the seeming “intellectual obstacles” to it, I can’t help but think that there is a correspondence between practicing a religion for the reason of cultural/family tradition or even a more respectable “true belief of the heart,” so to speak, and a weakening of the faith in general. In particular, when parents who have never questioned their faith and tried to understand its teachings beyond the simple explanation of, “Because God said so,” I think its almost un-debatable that their children will be much more prone to be led away from the faith. As Scripture says, “Love the Lord with all your mind, all your heart, and all your strength.” That suggests to me that an intellectual commitment, to whatever extent one is capable, is required of us. Believing with all one’s heart is a wonderful, admirable thing, but more is asked of us.

Much appreciated!

Agreed. Although from a historical perspective, sometimes even that is not enough. For example, North Africa had Cyprian and Augustine, and so many bright lights of reason, faith and will! and yet North Africa fell to the Muslims.

Anyway, I have start my day job.

God bless,
Ut