The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[summa8447]

A doctor in theology and philosophy, maybe it’s that: too long in academia?

On the other hand, when he is not debating, he sounds like a next door neighbor, very kind and witty. He sounds as if he had profound understanding of what he is saying… maybe it’s the tense situation of debate that makes him sound like that to you? I dunno, I’m just musing.

I guess if I had to debate, well, my exasperation would drive me into something less than smiley and cheerful. I wouldn’t want to debate in public. I’m used to writing my thoughts too, so my oral style might be weird. Oh, I also have the memory of a chicken when I explain things orally!

He is a professional accomplished debater. It is his thing. He goes into them with the goal of winning not broadening people’s understanding. He is playing to his cheering audience when he scores a good jab, here, there, and kapow. His post-debate coverage of his debate with Richard carrier starts off “L-l-l-et’s get ready to rummmbl-l-le”, then he talks about Carrier and his entourage of fans (and I didn’t hear Carrier’s fans in the audience).

I must say I have become increasingly critical of Carriers theories (I think I’ve indicated that before) the more times I listen to his interviews and debates and better I grasp his mythisist theories. He makes too wild of leaps on too many things. His debate with Mike Licona (I think there is 2 of those plus one teamed up with co-author Gary Habermas on the Infidel Guy’s show archive) is much better than against Bill. Craig is an expert at dispersing his opponents off their points. He throws out a zillion things that you can’t possibly respond to all. I guess if you want to win your debates that is smart. I just want to learn both sides point of view.

Summa8447

 

[summa8447]

You can apply a bit of reason…

Well, do you think the pagans were any better at the time? At least the Jews had a moral code and structured order which other civilizations lacked. In fact, this is the first time in world history that a peoples upheld any kind of law (specially moral), which is a pretty significant contribution to modern civilization.

I do not think that is true. There was hamurabi’s code and probably others. They were just primitive systems as was the Israelites in some ways.

This is much speculation in part of those who try to vilify the faith. I think the bottom line is this: it cannot be proven either way; now, do you stand for or against God?

Is it? Let me know what you are basing your statement on. Your words don’t have enough meat to help me with that.

Many gnostic gospels where written right around the time the authentic gospels were. This is a heresy the Church fought tooth and nail to defend Christ’s divinity, which the early Church fathers were even willing to give their lives for, as most of them did. Now, do you accept the testimony of a number of heretics who could care more or less about Christ? Or those who gave witness with their own blood? I for once would not give a drop for a hoax. Clearly, if the gnostic testimony is right, then there is no point to the gospel and could be dismissed.

In order to defend this, the early Church fathers put it simply; Jesus Christ is either a bad man (“malus homo”) or God made flesh.

I’m sorrycM0nkey, you are not answering me. I haven’t discussed Gnosticism. I do not find it a tenable correct teaching. It was among a chaotic era of disputing sects. But the sarcisist (physical resurrectionists) many not be the authentic early church either. Jesus may be mythical.

 

[Touchstone]

I wasn’t actually assuming you (or any atheist) would agree that salvation is necessary. I was more saying that theological faith is necessary for salvation, and reason cannot accomplish that on its own. It was in answer to the question “Why is faith necessary? Or what is it for?” (which I think you asked, but maybe not). You may say that saying such a thing to an unbeliever is totally worthless, but sometimes proclaiming something about the faith (like that) would awaken some supernatural realization in him. But sometimes, and most often not. Worth a try. So, nevermind.

I was raised a Calvinist, so I’m well aware of the “non-rational” dynamics that are supposed to obtain in the view of Christians. On Calvinism, particular the toxic presuppositionalist variety, the believer’s charge is not to bother reasoning with the infidel, but simply to proclaim the gospel and call the unbeliever to account. That is the obedience or unlocking or conjuring the Holy Spirit needs to do its thing on the unbeliever, who, steeped in his noetic difficulties because of the Fall, can’t really reason about anything, anyway…

I’m not casting you as a presuppositionalist Calvinist, here, but I do understand this to be an “outside of reasoning” form of appeal you are making. Fair enough.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. If you think that reason can save a person, then your objection makes sense.

No. From a reasoning standpoint, the need for, or even coherence of the concept of salvation is very much in question. As a Christian, who began to doubt – seriously disturbed by really delving into William Lane Craig’s apologetics, thinking I was “getting reason” in the Christian manner (whoops!) – it quickly became clear that one of the central questions implicated there is “do I even need to be saved?”

That’s a pivotal question. If the answer is “of course you need to be saved, how else can you be saved!”, that would signal a reasoning failure, as it begs the question. The responses here I note tend to beg that question. I’ll grant that such begging to the question may not be offered under the guise of an appeal to reason. As you said, it may be a supernatural something-or-other, or maybe just a tug on the guy’s emotions – his guilt, shame, fear being manipulated toward faith-restoring ends.

However, if you don’t even believe in salvation, then why would one object to saying that it can’t save a person?

It’s an unreasonable way to approach the question, that’s all. If one is to reason about Christianity’s truth, or its historical claims, or God’s existence, saying “reasoning can’t save you”, just begs the question at hand. To take heed of that is to commit an error in reasoning. I don’t think that’s some outrageous thing, but it’s worth pointing out that it does represent “turning [one’s] back on reason” to accept such premises up front.

“Bounding reason’s hands behind its back” seems to imply that we are claiming a limitation on reason when if in fact there is no such limitation. It must be proved that reason can save somebody, if in fact we are bounding reason’s hands. Otherwise, for as much as you or anyone knows, we may be treating reason exactly how it should be treated.

There’s no reason, starting into this question, to commit one way or another on the question of whether salvation is needed or meaningful at all. If there is no God, for example, there’s no salvation to be concerned about in the first place. To start with the caution that “reason can’t save you” is to make a reasoning error at the very first step. Maybe one must be saved, and maybe, further, reasoning can’t do the trick on its own. But these would be conclusions possibly arrived at through reasoning (which is problematic for this claim in its own right, I note), not assumptions taken up as necessary understandings up front.

Now perhaps a more precise explanation of what we mean by “reason not being able to save you.” It is true that reason can play a part in one’s salvation (and perhaps one could argue that it’s an essential ingredient), but our claim is “reason alone cannot save you.” The thing that actually saves one is grace (which includes the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity … one must have all three to be saved).

Got that. And I admit, I may misunderstand the kinds of doubts being voiced here. If the question is “Do I need reason alone to be saved, or grace (fortified, possibly, by reason) to be saved”, then I think your contributions are quite germane along those lines. I understood the doubts here to be much broader than that – going to the core of the Christian claims about the Bible’s truth and God’s existence (or maybe just God’s availability). In that case, the legitimacy of the idea that one needs to be saved in the first place is on the table.

However, sometimes one does not accept these things because they have a false conception of them or of truths connected to them (either because they lied to themselves or because they were told something untrue). Correct reason can thus show that these things do not contrad`ict reason, and hence remove intellectual obstacles that stand in the way of a person and his acceptance of grace (including the faith). Even if one has these virtues, one can hesitate from deepening them on account of some intellectual error … but correct reasoning can repair this, and make it possible to continue to progress in them.

See if that makes any sense (maybe it doesn’t).

Yeah, that’s tricky. On Christian theism, reason gets the boot any time it’s a problem. We can say that any proposition doesn’t contradict reason by simply invoking “mystery” or brute authority. When ‘correct reason’ is subordinated to dogma, it becomes impotent, unable to perform the function whereby it is uniquely valuable to us.

-TS

 

[summa8447]

Summa -

You’re searching for the truth. That’s to be applauded. But you yourself are starting with a few misunderstandings about the Truth, and about how to find it.

If you want to know whether something is true or not - test it! You doubt the Catholic Church’s teachings are true? That’s fine - TEST THEM!

There are three primary ways of testing these truths:

1. Examination of the lives of those who have been obedient to the teachings and careful analysis of the results;
2. Obedience to the teachings of the Church and analysis of the results on your own life;
3. Disobedience to the teachings of the Church and analysis of the results on your own life.

Now, I strongly recommend that you carefully do number 1 BEFORE you do number 2 if you have any doubts at all about where those teachings will lead you. Look at the lives of the Catholic Saints and study them. See what fruit their lives produced. You identify the type of tree you are looking at by the fruit that it bears (fruit is not meant in literal sense here). Once you are confident, experiment away. Try obedience to the Church’s teachings for 30 days. Remember, religion is like exercise. The more faithful you are to its practice the quicker and more satisfying the results will be.

Of course, this is my advice based on how I went about things during my own time of doubt. I tested through disobedience and realized the result was misery for myself and everyone around me. Obedience has resulted in the opposite - an increase in my capacity to give and receive love and thus an increase in my level of happiness for myself and everyone around me.

Ultimately the entirety of the laws of the Bible, the works of Christ, and everything the Church teaches can be summed up in one single word: Love. God is Love. The two are one and the same. This love is not romantic, but it is passionate. It is a love of choice. Choosing to love in spite of the unlovable behavior of the object of your love. The Bible is a very lengthy love letter written to humanity by a God who continues to pursue us even when we stray. Although much of it is historical fact, much more of it is poetic device and allegory and everything else you would expect to see when writing to a beloved.

I think I have considered keeping Church teachings and strove to follow them, however failingly I have done so. I have prayed for grace, and guidance, gone to confession, recieved communion, offered intentions at consecration, reception and prayed after reception at my pew. I also used to pray the daily Rosary. Currently I do the Daily Office via divineoffice.org/

I do want to know more of the saints lives. Audio Sancto has many sermons on saints. You might like this recent one audiosancto.org/sermon/20090920-Venerable-Maria-Carmen-Gonzales.html about Venerable Maria Carmen Gonzales. It’s pretty good. I don’t think this church (in Kansas City) is SSPX (although I have heard the society mentioned before). I think they are just Traditional Catholic.

Summa8447

 

[brandymmiller]

Jesus may be mythical.

Summa -

There is much historical evidence to prove that Jesus did actually exist and that his followers immediately after his death were already claiming his ressurection and went to their often gruesome deaths proclaiming its truth. He’s not a myth.

Here are a few websites to look through. I’m partial to New Advent, but that’s just me.
creatingfutures.net/birth.html
newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

 

[Luke65]

Thanks Luke,
I have heard that passage before. That’s a relevant one. I will look that up in my Navarre, Ignatius Study Bible (Scott & Mitch) and Jerome Biblical Commentary and contemplate it.

You must also remember I am also skeptical about the “inspired by God” nature of scripture and its integrity from alterations, accidental and intentional, from the original authors, you know, reductionism.

Oh, I remember!

Did you know that some of the Ignatius of Antioch writing are disputed in authorship, just as I think Marcion (declared heretic) supposedly had somehow wrote some things pseudonymously (common of writings of the day) under someone or another’s name. I think he had an altered version or else it may have been a more original and less altered version of Luke (he only accepted the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s writing in the New Testament and none of the Old T as scripture).

You’re assuming naturalism - why? Do you think the God of this universe is powerless to make sure that His people always have an accurate copy of His Word? Do you think the early Churchmen were so dumb that they didn’t realize that heretics were mutilating the Word of God, and writing false stories in the names of Apostles and Saints? There have have always been people trying to destroy the Church - both from within and without. Read the Bible! Faithful Christians have studied all these things for 2000 years, and you’re going to take the word of the heathen over the word of Fathers and Doctors, and the Magisterium that has been there from the beginning?

Also scholars only agree on 7 Pauline writings as authentically by Paul. The others may be pseudonymous. They are probably influenced by Paul. The ones that seem contextually to relate to later times after Paul’s death were probably writing by his pupils.

“Scholars”? Don’t you know that God makes foolish the theories of the unbelievers? Did you know that “scholars” used to agree that the Hittites didn’t exist because there was no extra-Biblical evidence for them? Then God humiliated them when archaeological evidence was found. Did you know that “scholars” agreed that David was a mythical character? Then God humiliated them when archaeological evidence was found. Did you know that “scholars” agreed that St. Luke was in error when he said that Pilate was a procurator, when Josephus and others said he was a prefect? Then God humiliated them when archaeological evidence was found that Luke was right. Did you know that “scholars” agreed that the Gospels and the whole NT “evolved” over centuries into a “Jesus is God” myth? Now try to find a scholar who says that the NT wasn’t written in the first century or early second century at the latest (it was finished by the end of the first century). And there are numerous other examples. These blind fools have been humiliated time after time after time, and yet you still follow them?! Don’t you know that God foretold all of this?

“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20)

I believe that in some of the others, the difference in writing style may not be accounted by pseudonymity but possibly Paul had scribes take his dictation and they may have transcribed it often in slightly different sentence structuring, in other words paraphrasing a little.

Okay, now you’re thinking! Here’s a little help on that point:

“I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand.” (1 Corinthians 16:21)

He says this several times. The implication, of course, is that sometimes he wrote himself, and sometimes he dictated his letters, possibly in Aramaic, and so they also would have gone through a translation filter. But the bottom line is that the Greek original says exactly what God wanted recorded - nothing more and nothing less - and it is His infallible Word.

See, I’m an equal opportunity skeptic. I’m critical of historical Biblical critics. I really try to be skeptical of all sides of these issues. I figure you guys may not perceive that. I’m really not trying to debate anyone here, but just trying to lay out different arguments/ points of view because I’m picking your brains for some leads on an answer. I have no overwhelming desire to side with anyone on these things, I just want to find the truth. I find myself constantly criticizing all sides on many issues.

And we just want you to understand that you’re putting the cart before the horse. You’re rushing to the front lines of the battle with the powers of darkness without your armor on!

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” (Ephesians 6:10-13)

Has this not all been foretold by the One who knows the end from the beginning? You say you want to believe, but you go seek out reasons not to believe. Isn’t that exactly what St. James meant by “double-minded”? Stop! Do the will of God. Do things His way, not your way - God gives His grace to the humble, but opposes the proud. Take the advice of those who have come before you, and those who have already gone through what you’re going through but now know the truth with certainty. Isn’t that what you say you want? I’m there, my brother, precisely because I wanted to believe and sought out reasons to believe, always seeking with the eyes of faith from God. God bless.

 

[Areopagite]

I was raised a Calvinist,

Oh my … I can very much understand why one would become an atheist. I say that with a great deal of sincerity too.

… so I’m well aware of the “non-rational” dynamics that are supposed to obtain in the view of Christians. On Calvinism, particular the toxic presuppositionalist variety, the believer’s charge is not to bother reasoning with the infidel, but simply to proclaim the gospel and call the unbeliever to account. That is the obedience or unlocking or conjuring the Holy Spirit needs to do its thing on the unbeliever, who, steeped in his noetic difficulties because of the Fall, can’t really reason about anything, anyway…

Yeah … that’s horrible. I hate that.

The only Calvinist I ever met (that I was aware of) said this too (but more “diplomatically”). He was actually a very nice person, eloquent, and educated (and many other virtues). We had about a six hour conversation on … a good deal. But he did argue at one point that, once someone has heard the Gospel, all unbelief is completely due to the person’s will. I argued that sometimes it wasn’t. I brought up the example of my friend who had become an intellectual anti-theist due to being told contradictory things about Christianity throughout his childhood (by his Christian parents even) … but when my friends and I eventually answered his questions/objections to his satisfaction, he soon afterwards came back to the Church. He later said (about our answers) that he had “simply never heard those things before” … because, I believe, he was genuinely and innocently ignorant about certain key aspects of Christianity (due, once again, to having been taught by misguided, unreasonable Christians).

Especially in this age, where Protestantism has given such contradictory views of Christianity, it is no wonder there are unbelievers … many of whom, I believe, are not responsible for their unbelief. That’s my opinion, anyway.

The Calvinist I was talking to didn’t buy it, of course. For being so well-spoken, always with ready-at-hand answers, his use of reason was … very slippery. He tended to “theologize” everything a bit much. He attributed a bit too many things to “faith” and really liked to side-line “reason.” It was a bit … well … disgusting.

But he was a nice guy, though.

I’m not casting you as a presuppositionalist Calvinist, here, but I do understand this to be an “outside of reasoning” form of appeal you are making. Fair enough.
No. From a reasoning standpoint, the need for, or even coherence of the concept of salvation is very much in question. As a Christian, who began to doubt – seriously disturbed by really delving into William Lane Craig’s apologetics, thinking I was “getting reason” in the Christian manner (whoops!) – it quickly became clear that one of the central questions implicated there is “do I even need to be saved?”

That’s a pivotal question. If the answer is “of course you need to be saved, how else can you be saved!”, that would signal a reasoning failure, as it begs the question. The responses here I note tend to beg that question. I’ll grant that such begging to the question may not be offered under the guise of an appeal to reason. As you said, it may be a supernatural something-or-other, or maybe just a tug on the guy’s emotions – his guilt, shame, fear being manipulated toward faith-restoring ends.

It’s an unreasonable way to approach the question, that’s all. If one is to reason about Christianity’s truth, or its historical claims, or God’s existence, saying “reasoning can’t save you”, just begs the question at hand. To take heed of that is to commit an error in reasoning. I don’t think that’s some outrageous thing, but it’s worth pointing out that it does represent “turning [one’s] back on reason” to accept such premises up front.
There’s no reason, starting into this question, to commit one way or another on the question of whether salvation is needed or meaningful at all. If there is no God, for example, there’s no salvation to be concerned about in the first place. To start with the caution that “reason can’t save you” is to make a reasoning error at the very first step. Maybe one must be saved, and maybe, further, reasoning can’t do the trick on its own. But these would be conclusions possibly arrived at through reasoning (which is problematic for this claim in its own right, I note), not assumptions taken up as necessary understandings up front.

All right, I think I understand what you’re saying.

First of all (and I’ve said some of this already, but will say again just for further clarity), that truths of the faith (particularly, the propositions that cannot be discovered/known by natural reason) cannot be proved (i.e. cannot be demonstrated using first principles). There are many natural truths, of course, that cannot be proved either (e.g. first principles, mathematical axioms, the idea that our mind actually can grasp reality in itself to any extent at all). Hence, just because something cannot be rationally demonstrated, it doesn’t mean it conflicts with reason (I think we’re both on board with that?).

Continued …

 

[Areopagite]

Of course, the natural intuitive and necessary concepts of reason (like first principles) is admittedly different from the the truths of faith. How does one arrive at these truths? By receiving them supernaturally (they are, what is called, “infused concepts”). Faith isn’t merely belief, but actual knowledge (this point is commonly misunderstood). Nonetheless, it’s not full knowledge of divine things, but partial knowledge and partial belief (those who have greater faith could be said to have more actual knowledge than belief … I believe). It would indeed be irrational to strongly believe in something without some actual knowledge about the thing, so hence faith is not merely belief but supernatural knowledge too.

Now, this knowledge could be blocked by intellectual errors (that pertain not only to faith but even natural things) or willful rejection (which would be sinful). Removing the intellectual errors, however, causes one to be more recipient to supernatural truths, which comes, once again, not by a reasoning process, but supernatural infusion … and hence a kind of supernatural intuition. As God calls everyone to the faith, He is pressing to give you this knowledge, but the obstacles must be removed first. Removing the obstacles can come, once again, by reasoning out a natural error that conflicts with the faith … or sometimes, yes, by some very moving emotional experience. As troublesome as the emotions can be, they can sometimes turn one’s attention to something you knew all along (I would say, however, emotional experiences are more useful for willfully resistant people rather than intellectually misinformed people … that’s my opinion).

Now, regarding the truth that “you need to be saved.” Certainly, this is a supernatural truth. The reasons could be many why this truth doesn’t make sense to you. Do you, for example, believe in evil?

If the question is “Do I need reason alone to be saved, or grace (fortified, possibly, by reason) to be saved”, then I think your contributions are quite germane along those lines.

Yeah. That’s what I’m saying.

Yeah, that’s tricky. On Christian theism, reason gets the boot any time it’s a problem.

Um … I would not agree. That, of course, is an issue for another thread (which … is probably going on right now … as it always is).

We can say that any proposition doesn’t contradict reason by simply invoking “mystery” or brute authority.

I can understand why you would say this. However, this is the deal (according to the Catholic Church):

• No truth of the faith contradicts reason.
• Sometimes, at first glance, a truth of the faith can appear to be contradictory, but under close inspection, it is discovered to be entirely reasonable (this is called a paradox … and there are of course natural paradoxes … especially in physics, for example, such as with relativity)
• “Mysteries” are those occasional paradoxes of Christianity which, under close inspection, cannot be rationally understood … BUT are unable to be demonstrated as being contradictory. (example of this are the Trinity and the Incarnation … they appear contradictory, but really no one has demonstrably shown them as logically absurd … unless you want to take a stab at it).

Hence, the claim is that there is no Christian Mystery that is contradictory, even under the microscope of natural reason. This doesn’t mean that the Mystery is comprehendible (hence the name) … it’s just not contradictory.

If you disagree and think we do hold some things that are self-contradictory … you must of course bring that up … to be dealt with one by one.

When ‘correct reason’ is subordinated to dogma, it becomes impotent, unable to perform the function whereby it is uniquely valuable to us.

Once again, I can understand why you say this. However, the claim isn’t that “If something in the faith is contradictory, then reason doesn’t apply here” … the claim is that “Reason can’t prove nor fully understand some truths of the faith, but nor can it find anything contradictory with them.”

Does that make sense?

If in fact reason can find a contradiction in an essential truth of faith, then the faith is surely unreasonable (i.e. anti-reasonable), and hence, the faith must be rejected. That’s what I would say.

 

[Touchstone]

[Thoughtful comments read, appreciated, snipped for brevity]

Now, regarding the truth that “you need to be saved.” Certainly, this is a supernatural truth. The reasons could be many why this truth doesn’t make sense to you. Do you, for example, believe in evil?

Sure. It may be helpful to point out that I was a devout Christian for 30+ years. I’m quite familiar with the soteriology here. It’s not confusion over the concept that’s problematic, here. I get it, just having lived under that understanding then, and reasoning about it, I’m just not even partly convinced anymore. Of course, if it’s a supernatural truth, my carnal reasoning and evidential analysis tools won’t help, and I understand you to be saying that would the convincing part, in your view.

I can understand why you would say this. However, this is the deal (according to the Catholic Church):

• No truth of the faith contradicts reason.
• Sometimes, at first glance, a truth of the faith can appear to be contradictory, but under close inspection, it is discovered to be entirely reasonable (this is called a paradox … and there are of course natural paradoxes … especially in physics, for example, such as with relativity)
• “Mysteries” are those occasional paradoxes of Christianity which, under close inspection, cannot be rationally understood … BUT are unable to be demonstrated as being contradictory. (example of this are the Trinity and the Incarnation … they appear contradictory, but really no one has demonstrably shown them as logically absurd … unless you want to take a stab at it).

Yeah, that conversation is an old, well-worn for me and my path through all this. I think what wore out was the idea that things “appear contradictory”, but yet “aren’t logically absurd”, because, well, they can’t be. Or:

1. Mystery X appears contradictory, but cannot be shown to be logically absurd.
2. Mystery X cannot be shown to be logically absurd because the contradictions are only apparent (even though we cannot rationally resolve the contradiction).

That’s problematic, in my view.

Hence, the claim is that there is no Christian Mystery that is contradictory, even under the microscope of natural reason. This doesn’t mean that the Mystery is comprehendible (hence the name) … it’s just not contradictory.

I understand. But you are classifying contradictions by dogma and rule here, rather than on the merits, on the internal clash of propositions. Dogma is good for that, but that, again, is highly problematic in terms of reasoning.

If you disagree and think we do hold some things that are self-contradictory … you must of course bring that up … to be dealt with one by one.

OK, not my goal here, in this thread, though. And I think you could name all the (putative) contradictions as well as I could. If dogma is sufficient to make them “not a problem” (“there is no Christian Mystery that is contradictory”) for you or anyone, that’s pretty much the end of conversation. Dogma admits of no liability or questions. End of story, short thread!

Once again, I can understand why you say this. However, the claim isn’t that “If something in the faith is contradictory, then reason doesn’t apply here” … the claim is that “Reason can’t prove nor fully understand some truths of the faith, but nor can it find anything contradictory with them.”

I do understand that, and it’s important that it’s articulated the way you have, here, thank you. As a rule, it takes, precedence, and the reasoning process by rule cannot lead to critical problems. This is what I associate with “turning one’s back on reason”, above. If there is an ostensible conflict between revelation and reason, reason gets the cold shoulder.

Does that make sense?

It does, thank you. We don’t agree, but you are quite clear in getting your ideas across, which I appreciate.

If in fact reason can find a contradiction in an essential truth of faith, then the faith is surely unreasonable (i.e. anti-reasonable), and hence, the faith must be rejected. That’s what I would say.

Well, that does throw me for a loop, I guess. How would you ever identify such a condition, given the primacy of revelation in your faith. That seems an unreachable node on the graph, given what you’ve said above. I must misunderstand, and appreciate what light you may shine on that for me, thanks.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Oh my … I can very much understand why one would become an atheist. I say that with a great deal of sincerity too.

Thank you, I take that sincerely. I’m 42, and dropped the Calvinism and young earth creationism of my upbringing in college for an Arminian flavor or Protestant Christianity, rendered in terms of theistic evolution. So that business is pretty far back in my rear view mirror, thankfully.

Yeah … that’s horrible. I hate that.

The only Calvinist I ever met (that I was aware of) said this too (but more “diplomatically”). He was actually a very nice person, eloquent, and educated (and many other virtues). We had about a six hour conversation on … a good deal. But he did argue at one point that, once someone has heard the Gospel, all unbelief is completely due to the person’s will. I argued that sometimes it wasn’t. I brought up the example of my friend who had become an intellectual anti-theist due to being told contradictory things about Christianity throughout his childhood (by his Christian parents even) … but when my friends and I eventually answered his questions/objections to his satisfaction, he soon afterwards came back to the Church. He later said (about our answers) that he had “simply never heard those things before” … because, I believe, he was genuinely and innocently ignorant about certain key aspects of Christianity (due, once again, to having been taught by misguided, unreasonable Christians).

Yeah. I’m an atheist, but Catholicism was a gratifying oasis in a desert of Christian insanity in that regard. I, like so many “Tiber Swimmers” I’ve known in the past ten years or so, just had very little knowledge or background in historic Christianity, and I, like so many of us, once they got hold of the writings of the ECF…

I think if you don’t have the history that the RCC has to lean on, Protestant apologetics are really problematic. One of the best “funnels toward atheism” is William Lane Craig for thinking, skeptically inclined Protestants. After sorting through that shambles, and hearing over and over that “Craig is the top dog”, it makes presuppositional apologetics, as obnoxious as it is, a pretty attractive option.

Especially in this age, where Protestantism has given such contradictory views of Christianity, it is no wonder there are unbelievers … many of whom, I believe, are not responsible for their unbelief. That’s my opinion, anyway.

Well, I own my unbelief, through and through. I did a good year and more of intense prep for swimming the Tiber and enrolling in RCIA after a long period of sustained but more casual study and reading of Catholic doctrine. I was particularly keen on the “defection” of Francis Beckwith to Catholicism, if you are familiar with that story, and that controversy was a good catalyst for a lot of reading and discussion of Catholic notions of justiftication and sanctification.

Anyway, I’m no Peter Kreeft, but I’m not lost in unbelief because I just am not familiar with Catholic doctrine.

The Calvinist I was talking to didn’t buy it, of course. For being so well-spoken, always with ready-at-hand answers, his use of reason was … very slippery. He tended to “theologize” everything a bit much. He attributed a bit too many things to “faith” and really liked to side-line “reason.” It was a bit … well … disgusting.

But he was a nice guy, though.

No he wasn’t. Presuppositional apologetics like that is just about the most hostile and cowardly stance one mind can take toward another. I appreciate your grace in saying that for the guy, but we both know what that commitment entails on his part.

All right, I think I understand what you’re saying.

First of all (and I’ve said some of this already, but will say again just for further clarity), that truths of the faith (particularly, the propositions that cannot be discovered/known by natural reason) cannot be proved (i.e. cannot be demonstrated using first principles). There are many natural truths, of course, that cannot be proved either (e.g. first principles, mathematical axioms, the idea that our mind actually can grasp reality in itself to any extent at all). Hence, just because something cannot be rationally demonstrated, it doesn’t mean it conflicts with reason (I think we’re both on board with that?).

Continued …

Yeah, that’s indisputably true. One of the principles I’m regularly invoking are those of Quine, and Gödel, and formal undecidability is one of the principles I have to wrestle with in my professional work, day in, day out. So no argument from me on that, and I think you can make it stronger if want – some truths in a formal system cannot be demonstrated, and yet remain truths. That is, for such a system, there are truths you cannot possible get at by proof and derivation.

That said, I’m not comfortable with treating Catholic theology as a formal system, but I do think the principle applies. No system can be exhaustive about its own propositions in internal terms.

So these truths exist, in your view, inaccesible by empirical and rational inquiry, but are made accessible and reveled supernaturally. Do I have that right?

-TS

 

[StillWondering]

Yeah, that’s tricky. On Christian theism, reason gets the boot any time it’s a problem. We can say that any proposition doesn’t contradict reason by simply invoking “mystery” or brute authority. When ‘correct reason’ is subordinated to dogma, it becomes impotent, unable to perform the function whereby it is uniquely valuable to us.

-TS

If you do not like how people can through away reason simply by invoking a mystery, you should check out the Catholic faith. To Catholics, faith and reason never contradict. As any individual might have trouble in one idea or another, but if you get your information from a well informed and orthodox Catholic it should be clear that faith and reason never contradict.

The basic reason why they cannot contradict is because reason is understanding, observation, and intellectual investigation of reality, physical and supernatural. But if there is one true God that created all of the universe, seen and unseen, and he is all good, then these things cannot contradict with a faith that is true and founded by Himself. Else God contradicts himself and all is chaos.

If you have investigated Catholicism and found contradictions, please contact me in private. I’m not a scholar but maybe I can help clear up any errors or learn from you. Since I trust in God and the Church He founded, my underlining motivation is that the Church will come out correct and hopefully gain a new vibrant and truth seeking member.

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you, I take that sincerely. I’m 42, and dropped the Calvinism and young earth creationism of my upbringing in college for an Arminian flavor or Protestant Christianity, rendered in terms of theistic evolution. So that business is pretty far back in my rear view mirror, thankfully.

Yeah. I’m an atheist, but Catholicism was a gratifying oasis in a desert of Christian insanity in that regard. I, like so many “Tiber Swimmers” I’ve known in the past ten years or so, just had very little knowledge or background in historic Christianity, and I, like so many of us, once they got hold of the writings of the ECF…

I think if you don’t have the history that the RCC has to lean on, Protestant apologetics are really problematic. One of the best “funnels toward atheism” is William Lane Craig for thinking, skeptically inclined Protestants. After sorting through that shambles, and hearing over and over that “Craig is the top dog”, it makes presuppositional apologetics, as obnoxious as it is, a pretty attractive option.

Well, I own my unbelief, through and through. I did a good year and more of intense prep for swimming the Tiber and enrolling in RCIA after a long period of sustained but more casual study and reading of Catholic doctrine.

Quite an interesting roller-coaster of theology and religion you’ve been on. Very interesting. I can see more and more of where you’re coming from.

I was particularly keen on the “defection” of Francis Beckwith to Catholicism, if you are familiar with that story, and that controversy was a good catalyst for a lot of reading and discussion of Catholic notions of justiftication and sanctification.

Yep, I know of the Beckwith.

No he wasn’t. Presuppositional apologetics like that is just about the most hostile and cowardly stance one mind can take toward another. I appreciate your grace in saying that for the guy, but we both know what that commitment entails on his part.

… yeah … that’s true.

Yeah, that’s indisputably true. One of the principles I’m regularly invoking are those of Quine, and Gödel, and formal undecidability is one of the principles I have to wrestle with in my professional work, day in, day out. So no argument from me on that, and I think you can make it stronger if want – some truths in a formal system cannot be demonstrated, and yet remain truths. That is, for such a system, there are truths you cannot possible get at by proof and derivation.

Sweet. I’m glad we’re in agreement on this point. It’s … stressful when some people don’t accept this. Fortunately, there aren’t too many people who would disagree here (at least in my experience).

So these truths exist, in your view, inaccesible by empirical and rational inquiry, but are made accessible and reveled supernaturally. Do I have that right?

Yes. I think so.

Well, I would say that, once someone accepts the truths of faith, one can investigate them more thoroughly with reason (i.e. with rational inquiry … unless that term has a specific usage I’m unaware of). That is, given the theological premises are true, what are some conclusions that follow. In that sense, theology can be formalized and developed into a system. To the unbeliever, of course, it’s a system founded on potentially useless/untrue premises, but for the believer who accepts the faith and thus the premises, the system would be very useful indeed … an aid to understanding his faith and thus growing in it.

 

[Areopagite]

Yeah, that conversation is an old, well-worn for me and my path through all this. I think what wore out was the idea that things “appear contradictory”, but yet “aren’t logically absurd”, because, well, they can’t be. Or:

1. Mystery X appears contradictory, but cannot be shown to be logically absurd.
2. Mystery X cannot be shown to be logically absurd because the contradictions are only apparent (even though we cannot rationally resolve the contradiction).

That’s problematic, in my view.

I see what you’re saying. I would agree that this would be problematic. And this is because I explained myself poorly.

When I said that something “appears contradictory” … I didn’t mean that it was “contradictory in terms of human logic” but merely that it “superficially seems like it’s contradictory without any careful analytical look at it.” For example, I was watching a documentary the other day on medieval weaponry, and the guy was demonstrating how to use a flail. He said, “Paradoxically, it much easier to control if you are swinging it around very fast instead of slow.” This was paradoxical because one’s gut instinct might assume that swinging it slowly would allow for greater control. However, when analyzed (taking into account physics and whatnot), it can be shown that there is no contradiction here. Many truths are like that … they appear to be contradictory, but really aren’t.

Christian Mysteries are like that, except their truth cannot be demonstrated (unlike the controllability of the fast-swinging flail). They seem like contradictions (at least to some people) at first glance, but when investigating them, it turns out that they cannot be proved to be contradictions, but they cannot be proved to be true either. There is never any contradiction there at at all (which is different from what you said that I was saying).

Does … that make sense?

Now, if a Christian Mystery is proven to be contradictory (by simple valid human logic or whatever), then that means that Mystery is false. We’re not going to say, “Well … it’s false according to human reason … but not divine reason” or something like that. If it’s logically contradictory, then it’s disproven. And we lose.

Now, of course, the claim is that no Christian Mystery has ever been shown to be contradictory. The only way to object to a Christian truth would be to also (perhaps unintentionally) object to some truth of natural reason. Hence, if one’s natural reason is in order, one will not find problems with the Catholic faith. That’s … the claim.

Perhaps I have failed to address your question and have stated things that you already knew. If so, I apologize.

It does, thank you. We don’t agree, but you are quite clear in getting your ideas across, which I appreciate.

Thanks. That means a lot.

This is what I associate with “turning one’s back on reason”, above. If there is an ostensible conflict between revelation and reason, reason gets the cold shoulder.

What … perchance … do you mean by “ostensible conflict?”

If in fact reason can find a contradiction in an essential truth of faith, then the faith is surely unreasonable (i.e. anti-reasonable), and hence, the faith must be rejected. That’s what I would say.

There is a distinction to be made, I think, between proving something with reason and showing something is likely to be the case with reason. If faith is demonstrably disproved, then faith is anathema. If however one brings up a doubt about the faith using some kind of rational basis … but never constituting an actual syllogistic refutation of it … then Catholics are obliged to side with faith, no matter the force of the likely (but not certain) argument to the contrary. Does that make sense?

I think a good example is all the alleged historical refutations of Christianity. Time and time again, historians “prove” that Christianity doesn’t have historical reality (though much of the time they turn out to be wrong). But history, of course, is far from an exact science. Dogmatic statements about whether a historical event happened a certain way can rarely be made. So, if a historian makes a somewhat reasonable case that Christ never existed (but of course can’t prove it), the Christian is obligated to not believe him … or else simply stop being Christian. There are, however, many historical claims made that are presented as being contradictory to Christian truth but, in reality, are not in conflict at all. One can go into infinite detail here … but I won’t.

I hope that makes some kind of sense. I can guess what some of your objections might be. But … I’ll let you make them first.

 

[summa8447]

You must also remember I am also skeptical about the “inspired by God” nature of scripture and its integrity from alterations, accidental and intentional, from the original authors, you know, reductionism.

Oops, I should have typed redactionism. I guess I took spell checks prompt and should not have.

 

[Touchstone]

If you do not like how people can through away reason simply by invoking a mystery, you should check out the Catholic faith. To Catholics, faith and reason never contradict. As any individual might have trouble in one idea or another, but if you get your information from a well informed and orthodox Catholic it should be clear that faith and reason never contradict.

The basic reason why they cannot contradict is because reason is understanding, observation, and intellectual investigation of reality, physical and supernatural. But if there is one true God that created all of the universe, seen and unseen, and he is all good, then these things cannot contradict with a faith that is true and founded by Himself. Else God contradicts himself and all is chaos.

If you have investigated Catholicism and found contradictions, please contact me in private. I’m not a scholar but maybe I can help clear up any errors or learn from you. Since I trust in God and the Church He founded, my underlining motivation is that the Church will come out correct and hopefully gain a new vibrant and truth seeking member.

Well, I thank you sincerely for that offer. I have a many around me who’ve made similar offers, and while I have abandoned Christianity all together, the Catholics in my life have been much more available and eager to address “faith and reason” issues, and in a head on way than the Protestant evangelical circles I grew up in and which I remain in as far as extended family, neighbors, homeschool co-ops etc. That commends Catholics and their faith to me.

-TS

 

[summa8447]

First of all, ReggieM, I’m on board with everything you’ve said down to the smallest detail. Good man.

I understand now that you have a different definition of skepticism (which is different from the one that’s been used for the last 2,400 years). It was a bit misleading when you said “Skepticism should be used in every circumstance” and yet you didn’t mean “one shouldn’t be undecided on every issue.” But no matter.

Of course, what does “proper basis” mean? I don’t see how theological faith lacks proper basis.

That sounds reasonable.

Well … I must admit, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying (probably my fault).

It was in answer to the question “Why is faith necessary? Or what is it for?” You may say that saying such a thing to an unbeliever is totally worthless, but sometimes proclaiming something about the faith (like that) would awaken some supernatural realization in him.

Now perhaps a more precise explanation of what we mean by “reason not being able to save you.” It is true that reason can play a part in one’s salvation (and perhaps one could argue that it’s an essential ingredient), but our claim is “reason alone cannot save you.” The thing that actually saves one is grace (which includes the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity … one must have all three to be saved). However, sometimes one does not accept these things because they have a false conception of them or of truths connected to them (either because they lied to themselves or because they were told something untrue). Correct reason can thus show that these things do not contradict reason, and hence remove intellectual obstacles that stand in the way of a person and his acceptance of grace (including the faith).

Note: I’m responding here, but I was not the original party with whom you were speaking.

The dilemma that comes up in my mind is how will one recognize faith from reasoned belief. Faith is supposed to be a gift. So is it a gift combined with reason and irrational thinking? Also what is the way of discerning when you have grace? I mean it is possible to do/think good, moral actions/things apart from anything supernatural things like grace. So what is the verifying identifier of Grace?
Summa8447

 

[Touchstone]

I see what you’re saying. I would agree that this would be problematic. And this is because I explained myself poorly.

When I said that something “appears contradictory” … I didn’t mean that it was “contradictory in terms of human logic” but merely that it “superficially seems like it’s contradictory without any careful analytical look at it.” For example, I was watching a documentary the other day on medieval weaponry, and the guy was demonstrating how to use a flail. He said, “Paradoxically, it much easier to control if you are swinging it around very fast instead of slow.” This was paradoxical because one’s gut instinct might assume that swinging it slowly would allow for greater control. However, when analyzed (taking into account physics and whatnot), it can be shown that there is no contradiction here. Many truths are like that … they appear to be contradictory, but really aren’t.

OK, understand the point you are making, here. I think the problem obtains in working through “appears contradictory”. In the show you were watching, I suspect a quick demonstration by the guy with the flail might have been sufficient for you (or I) watching to see that paradox resolved. Perhaps we’d have to handle the weapon ourselves, but the point is that the “apparency” is demosntrated in that case, shown to be a superficial conflict, a bit of counter-intuitive dynamics we can prove out.

In theological questions, reducing this ostensible contradiction to a matter of mere apparency is often very difficult to do, in my experience.

Christian Mysteries are like that, except their truth cannot be demonstrated (unlike the controllability of the fast-swinging flail). They seem like contradictions (at least to some people) at first glance, but when investigating them, it turns out that they cannot be proved to be contradictions, but they cannot be proved to be true either. There is never any contradiction there at at all (which is different from what you said that I was saying).

Does … that make sense?

It does make sense as a clarification. Your last statement there – there is no never any contradiction, even though we are unable to prove or disprove the actuality of seeming contradiction, seems a problem. Doesn’t follow directly, although I suppose this is where you are applying a theological override – there cannot be a true contradiction, so there is not a true contradiction?

Now, if a Christian Mystery is proven to be contradictory (by simple valid human logic or whatever), then that means that Mystery is false. We’re not going to say, “Well … it’s false according to human reason … but not divine reason” or something like that. If it’s logically contradictory, then it’s disproven. And we lose.

Fair enough, but as you know, valid syllogisms are rarely the problem – those are formalities, literally. The problems that suggest contradictions obtain in the premises, and as such, are not adjudicated by checking for modus ponens, and/or scanning for undistributed middles, etc.

Now, of course, the claim is that no Christian Mystery has ever been shown to be contradictory. The only way to object to a Christian truth would be to also (perhaps unintentionally) object to some truth of natural reason. Hence, if one’s natural reason is in order, one will not find problems with the Catholic faith. That’s … the claim.

OK, I’m tempted to bring up an example or two, but I’m pushing things far enough off Summa’s topic here as is, so I won’t. I suspect from this that the “nature of natural reason” then becomes problematic.

What … perchance … do you mean by “ostensible conflict?”

It’s that which you referred to as “appears contradictory”, above – ostensible meaning it appears that way, at least superficially.

There is a distinction to be made, I think, between proving something with reason and showing something is likely to be the case with reason. If faith is demonstrably disproved, then faith is anathema. If however one brings up a doubt about the faith using some kind of rational basis … but never constituting an actual syllogistic refutation of it … then Catholics are obliged to side with faith, no matter the force of the likely (but not certain) argument to the contrary. Does that make sense?

Yes, but as above, saying one is willing to renounce syllogistic errors isn’t allowing much at all. Those are the “typos” of reasoning.

In the Cosmological Argument for God (and I fully realize that defeat of this argument does nothing to disprove God, but just the argument), the validity of the argument is trivially establish, and all the problems and controversy obtain in the soundness as obtains from the premises. Saying “We ready retreat from invalid forms” is great, but a kind of token concession. All the action happens in assessing the premises, and here there is no clear-cut formal disqualification.

If I think about all the objections and criticisms I have in Catholic thinking, NONE of them are syllogistic errors. They all stem from shaky, unwarranted premises, premises which I’m sure Catholics will say are not shaky, or unwarranted. Much of the time, the arguments aren’t formally syllogized, and we are just arguing about one premise or another. It’s assumed that if the premise can be established, the syllogistic packaging can developed as needed.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I think a good example is all the alleged historical refutations of Christianity. Time and time again, historians “prove” that Christianity doesn’t have historical reality (though much of the time they turn out to be wrong). But history, of course, is far from an exact science. Dogmatic statements about whether a historical event happened a certain way can rarely be made. So, if a historian makes a somewhat reasonable case that Christ never existed (but of course can’t prove it), the Christian is obligated to not believe him … or else simply stop being Christian.

Yes, but that’s a scenario where again, the “turn its back on reason” phrase springs to mind again. It’s NOT reasoning to abandon reason at that point, it’s faith, reasoning being overruled… “turning your back on reason”. I understand why this is done, but this seems to be a blindspot Catholics have about how reason gets applied in an ad-hoc way, yet the “ad-hocness” is denied or not acknowledged. I know “turn our backs on reason” was not your phrase, but when reason only is given credence at the extremes – in the “cut and dried” cases, we miss the primary utility of reasoning, don’t we? Most of real world reasoning obtains between the extremes, no?

There are, however, many historical claims made that are presented as being contradictory to Christian truth but, in reality, are not in conflict at all. One can go into infinite detail here … but I won’t.

I hope that makes some kind of sense. I can guess what some of your objections might be. But … I’ll let you make them first.

Well, I’m happy to do that, but that’s not my objective on this thread. That’s something we can pursue on a different thread, if you like.

Thanks for the comments.

-TS

 

[summa8447]

Oh, I remember!

You’re assuming naturalism - why? Do you think the God of this universe is powerless to make sure that His people always have an accurate copy of His Word? Do you think the early Churchmen were so dumb that they didn’t realize that heretics were mutilating the Word of God, and writing false stories in the names of Apostles and Saints? There have have always been people trying to destroy the Church - both from within and without. Read the Bible! Faithful Christians have studied all these things for 2000 years, and you’re going to take the word of the heathen over the word of Fathers and Doctors, and the Magisterium that has been there from the beginning?

I wouldn’t use the term naturalism to describe it. I would call it human nature. Humans operated the writing instruments. Those human’s ideas, biases, perceptions, personalities, and writing styles, and more were involved when writing things. I am not assuming a prior i supernatural inspiration. I am stepping back, reexamining and trying to reestablish what formerly I just assumed because I was taught these things.

“Scholars”? Don’t you know that God makes foolish the theories of the unbelievers? Did you know that “scholars” used to agree that the Hittites didn’t exist because there was no extra-Biblical evidence for them? Then God humiliated them when archaeological evidence was found. Did you know that “scholars” agreed that David was a mythical character? Then God humiliated them when archaeological evidence was found. Did you know that “scholars” agreed that St. Luke was in error when he said that Pilate was a procurator, when Josephus and others said he was a prefect? Then God humiliated them when archaeological evidence was found that Luke was right. Did you know that “scholars” agreed that the Gospels and the whole NT “evolved” over centuries into a “Jesus is God” myth? Now try to find a scholar who says that the NT wasn’t written in the first century or early second century at the latest (it was finished by the end of the first century). And there are numerous other examples. These blind fools have been humiliated time after time after time, and yet you still follow them?! Don’t you know that God foretold all of this?

“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20)

God humiliated…? Why fill what isn’t even gaps with God? You’re clouding your objectivity with extraneous assumptions. How about all humans are prone to pride/ego and we get stuck in paradigms. It takes later people to come and poke holes in previous assumptions. Perhaps the ones who poked holes were wrong so later people came and poked hole. Later more holes get poked in that. You go from blood letting to medicine, from flat earth to round, from geocentric to heliocentric, from static universe with no beginning to big bang, from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s General relativity, to quantum theory of gravity to string theory with supercolliders like Large Hadron Collider searching for Supersymmetry in supersymmetric partners. Human knowledge marches on, but it is fallible and does require constant correction. That is the object of studying biblical history. And of course there are political and personal biases involved. I try to wade through those and discredit them.

Okay, now you’re thinking! Here’s a little help on that point:

“I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand.” (1 Corinthians 16:21)

He says this several times. The implication, of course, is that sometimes he wrote himself, and sometimes he dictated his letters, possibly in Aramaic, and so they also would have gone through a translation filter. But the bottom line is that the Greek original says exactly what God wanted recorded - nothing more and nothing less - and it is His infallible Word.

And we just want you to understand that you’re putting the cart before the horse. You’re rushing to the front lines of the battle with the powers of darkness without your armor on!

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” (Ephesians 6:10-13)

Has this not all been foretold by the One who knows the end from the beginning? You say you want to believe, but you go seek out reasons not to believe. Isn’t that exactly what St. James meant by “double-minded”? Stop! Do the will of God. Do things His way, not your way - God gives His grace to the humble, but opposes the proud. Take the advice of those who have come before you, and those who have already gone through what you’re going through but now know the truth with certainty. Isn’t that what you say you want? I’m there, my brother, precisely because I wanted to believe and sought out reasons to believe, always seeking with the eyes of faith from God. God bless.

 

[Areopagite]

Note: I’m responding here, but I was not the original party with whom you were speaking.

No problem, of course.

I feel though I must apologize for getting “a bit” off your original topic … but … maybe it’s sufficiently related … I guess.

The dilemma that comes up in my mind is how will one recognize faith from reasoned belief.

Good question. Let me ask a question first. What do you mean by a “reasoned belief?” What are some example of things you know by reason?

Faith is supposed to be a gift. So is it a gift combined with reason and irrational thinking?

What do you mean by “irrational thinking?” Usually the word “irrational” means “against reason.” If that’s what you mean, then the answer is no. If you mean “irrational” as in “not within the realm of (human) reason” then … yes.

I might be misunderstanding you, though.

Also what is the way of discerning when you have grace?

Good question. Detecting grace is not possible by natural human faculties (I am open to correction on this). Hence, it is never naturally certain whether one is even in a state of grace.

Joan of Arc, when on trial, was asked, “Are you in a state of grace?” in order that they might catch her in a contradiction. She responded, “If I’m not, may it please God to put me in a state of grace. If I am, may it please God to keep me there.”

However, God could give you the* particular* grace that gives you the knowledge whether you are have grace or not, or even whether someone else has it or not. We cannot figure out a method to figure out if an action was done by grace. But many times, God gives us the particular grace to see the grace in another person’s action (in which case, the love of God is made known to us) … the more grace that action has, the more grace we will see (provided, once again, we are given that sight at the time).

Why can’t we always see these things? Why aren’t we always given the grace to see grace? Why does God cover our eyes? Well … there’s several answers and several ways to talk about the answers. One reason is to give you humility … to try and get you to realize your lack of omniscience, for example, and how you need grace to know supernatural realities (for if you think you could identify divine things by your own power … you may suffer from a bit of pride).

Tons more to say on that. I can’t give it justice. Hope that may help.

I mean it is possible to do/think good, moral actions/things apart from anything supernatural things like grace.

I’m no expert here, but I believe that the doctrine is this …

One, without grace, can perform objectively good works. However, without grace, fallen man cannot do objectively good works with perfectly good intentions/motivations. In that sense, “man can do no good” (because every act without grace is tainted by less that perfect motivation). And yet, without grace, intentions are never pure evil, but mixed with natural virtue (e.g. the cardinal virtues) and sinful motivations. When one has sanctifying grace, it gives a man the ability to act out of supernatural charity … to act purely out of love of God (although a man can of course, choose to act selfishly even here … in which case the charity in him is lessened).

I hope that makes sense. It’s a good question.