The Divorce of Fatih & Reason

[mosher]

Emotions are a matter of the human person and are intrinsically good because they are unique to the human person as created by God. However, emotionas are - as a result of the fall - disordered. In each of us some emotions are more disordered than others but the fact remains that sainthood cannot be achieved until the lower passions and powers of the soul are made subject to the higher powers of the soul. What does this mean? In a nutshell it means that our emotions must be governed by reason as we are rational-animals by definition and it is our rational character that is intrinsically united to the fact that we are Imago Dei (in the image of God) and that we have a Capax Dei (a capacity for God).

During the reign of John Paul II he was lauded for many things in the Church and in the world. He was a champion of freedom, equality, justice, and life. He was a Pontiff (Bridge Builder) in the true sense. However, while he is lauded for this writtings concerning these issues he is not ever recognized in popular circles for one of his most important works and one of his largest encyclicals. The Encyclical that I am refering to is Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason).

In this encyclical he laments that today most people and most troubling that catholics have divorced their faith from reason. It is an article of our faith that all propositions that are posited for belief must be reasonable. It is also an article of faith that fidiesm is a heresy. That is, to hold the position of “faith alone” or in the words of Tertulian “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem” is to hold a position that is outside of the Church when it comes to our faith.

John Paul II spends much time discussing that the central problem of our time is just this. In reading many posts online on many different message boards I am convinced that John Paul II was not only right but that he has been prophetic. Many arguments that are made in all the posts that I seem stem from am emotional attachment to a particular vice or some type of feeling in general. However, we know as a matter of faith that our faith is not based upon our feelings or our senses but rather revelation is posited directly by God and then we use reason to help us understand that which has been given us by God. The dismissal of Doctors of the Church and objective morals in matters of theological or moral investigation is directly related to this problem of the primacy of faith over reason. In previous generations this was only a problem among protestants and their supportes but in the last four decades or so this very protestant way of feeling the truth has crept into many well meaning Catholic which can usually be associated with the statement that “it (whatever it is) makes me feel good” or “that seems harsh” or similar statements.

So, really my question is, since this applies most expediently to issues of Moral Theology, how are we to fight against and rejoin faith and reason?

 

[frogman80]

Very nice post… well said.

So, really my question is, since this applies most expediently to issues of Moral Theology, how are we to fight against and rejoin faith and reason?

“Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened.” Prayer for Wisdom, and Truth is always a good place to start.

 

[mosher]

frogman80:

Very nice post… well said.

“Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened.” Prayer for Wisdom, and Truth is always a good place to start.

True, that prayer is the place to start but how does this extend to those that are very satisfied with their erronious beliefs. How is it that those who put their fellings before reason when it comes to the faith can come to true faith guided by reason.

 

[LukeQ]

Mosher - You have got to the central core of most of the disagreements IN the church. This is the best posting I have read since joining this forum!

It affects faith in the sense that people pick up new ways of thinking or believing because it “feels good” and as you mention, the binding comes from emotional attachment. “Feeling good” is also upheld as a value in our society too.

Some areas I have witnessed that have their basis in emotional attachment are:

• inordinate distortions in Marian Theology caused and / or supported by unapproved or condemned apparitions;
• Attachment to religious practices from superstitious drivers;
• Seeking Eastern, (Buddhist / New Age etc.) methods of prayer and contemplation to get closer to Jesus Christ, (on the flip side, Buddhists don’t pray the rossary as a prelude to meditiation);
• Justification of one’s and others actions contrary to the Deposit of Faith because “I feel it is good” or “A loving God would surely approve of this or that”;
• Political Activism - crossing the border from where religion ends and politics begins.

By no means is this list exhausted…

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS???

1. I have been wanting to read Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) for a while and I will start next week;
2. I will also talk with my priest about this too;
3. Can we all raise general awareness of this and start talking the language of this Encyclical? It may help when we are discussing the above issues with those who are being steared by the heart alone or by the head alone.

In closing, I feel, (and think too ) that I have fallen victim too. It is an easy trap.

Luke

 

[Mystophilus]

mosher:

Many arguments that are made in all the posts that I seem stem from am emotional attachment to a particular vice or some type of feeling in general.

I would say that all arguments ever made by any human being anywhere either stem from, or are inflected by, emotions. Further, I would suggest that the utter universality of this effect suggests that it is a design feature of the human being, and not a flaw.

The dismissal of Doctors of the Church and objective morals in matters of theological or moral investigation is directly related to this problem of the primacy of faith over reason.

The refusal to accept doctrines handed down by any external source of reputed authority is the entelechy of reasoned faith. Accepting that what the Church says is true merely because the Church says it is faith, not reason. Over history, the Church has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to be wrong (hence the evolution of doctrine), and so it is illogical to assume that it is now perfectly correct in all that it pronounces.

… this very protestant way of feeling the truth has crept into many well meaning Catholic which can usually be associated with the statement that “it (whatever it is) makes me feel good” or “that seems harsh” or similar statements.

I’ll skip the unsupported accusation that Protestants are less reasoned in their faith than Catholics and proceed to the statements. The fact that feelings can be misleading is not proof that they are always wrong. This is especially true of the second statement. When a believer sees that something seems harsh, s/he is questioning the mercy of this thing. This is an action which has clear Biblical sanction, which I shall put into a new thread.

So, really my question is, since this applies most expediently to issues of Moral Theology, how are we to fight against and rejoin faith and reason?

“Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Do not neglect to question something merely because it is accepted by someone else: they are merely human, and humans make mistakes.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Mystophilus:

The refusal to accept doctrines handed down by any external source of reputed authority is the entelechy of reasoned faith. Accepting that what the Church says is true merely because the Church says it is faith, not reason. Over history, the Church has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to be wrong (hence the evolution of doctrine), and so it is illogical to assume that it is now perfectly correct in all that it pronounces.

I just wanted to say that “the evloution of doctrine” is not any indication that “the Church has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to be wrong.” It merely means that the Church has not come to the fullness of an understanding of a doctrine. The Church makes a very low truth claim: it merely claims that what it teaches is not false. It doesn’t say that its doctrines are fully developed or understood; in fact, it proclaims that many of its doctrines (such as the Trinity) cannot be fully grasped by reason, although they are not in conflict with reason.

 

[Mystophilus]

Grace and Glory:

I just wanted to say that “the evolution of doctrine” is not any indication that “the Church has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to be wrong.” It merely means that the Church has not come to the fullness of an understanding of a doctrine.

If the original doctrine was not incorrect (by omission or commission), what possible motivation could there be for changing it?

If the Church has not come to the fullness of understanding, then it is not correct in that doctrine: it is at most approximately correct, which is partly incorrect.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Mystophilus:

If the original doctrine was not incorrect (by omission or commission), what possible motivation could there be for changing it?

If the Church has not come to the fullness of understanding, then it is not correct in that doctrine: it is at most approximately correct, which is partly incorrect.

This is a very poor analogy, but I can’t think of anything better at the moment. Please bear with me.
If you ask me where I live, and I say I live on earth, I’m not saying anything incorrect. It’s not partly incorrect, although it’s not very precise. If I narrow it down to the western hemisphere, that doesn’t mean I was incorrect before; it only means that you’re discovering in more detail where I live. We could further narrow it down to nation, state, county, town, zip code, street, address, room. Each step of the way would get more precise, but that doesn’t mean the earlier answers were incorrect.

 

[stanley123]

Mystophilus:

I would say that all arguments ever made by any human being anywhere either stem from, or are inflected by, emotions. .

I don’t think that all arguments are inflected by emotions. Many are, but not all. For a simple example, take the argument in favor of the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry that aa + bb = c*c.

 

[stanley123]

Grace and Glory:

If you ask me where I live, and I say I live on earth, I’m not saying anything incorrect. It’s not partly incorrect, although it’s not very precise. If I narrow it down to the western hemisphere, that doesn’t mean I was incorrect before; it only means that you’re discovering in more detail where I live. We could further narrow it down to nation, state, county, town, zip code, street, address, room. Each step of the way would get more precise, but that doesn’t mean the earlier answers were incorrect.

This makes sense. Less precise does not necessarily mean incorrect.

 

[Mystophilus]

stanley123:

I don’t think that all arguments are inflected by emotions. Many are, but not all. For a simple example, take the argument in favor of the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry that aa + bb = c*c.

Is that an argument, or a proof? (I received a D- in maths, by the way.)

 

[Mystophilus]

Grace and Glory:

This is a very poor analogy, but I can’t think of anything better at the moment. Please bear with me.
If you ask me where I live, and I say I live on earth, I’m not saying anything incorrect.

This is true, provided that the answer is not represented as being complete.

Each step of the way would get more precise, but that doesn’t mean the earlier answers were incorrect.

This is also true, but the analogy only applies to doctrines which were changed by addition and not to those which were changed by alteration, e.g., the position regarding Galileo’s heliocentric model, of which the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture.”

Having said all of this, I should hasten to point out that I do not regard this as a failing of the Catholic Church. Churches are composed of humans, and humans were designed by God to be imperfect. What matters most is not whether or not you fail (because you certainly will), but whether you have the maturity to admit it and learn from it.

 

[stanley123]

Mystophilus:

Is that an argument, or a proof?

According to one dictionary, one definition of an argument is a reason given in a proof. According to this, a proof is nothing more than a series of arguments leading to the acceptance by the mind of a truth.
It would be my contention that these arguments. leading to the proof of the Pythagorean theorem, are not “inflected” by emotions.

 

[Mystophilus]

stanley123:

According to one dictionary, one definition of an argument is a reason given in a proof. According to this, a proof is nothing more than a series of arguments leading to the acceptance by the mind of a truth.
It would be my contention that these arguments, leading to the proof of the Pythagorean theorem, are not “inflected” by emotions.

Given this definition, I would wholeheartedly agree.

Allow me then to emend my statement to read, “all arguments ever made by any human being anywhere which concern ideas or assertions which are not readily demonstrable either stem from, or are inflected by, emotions.”

It is not perfect, I know, but making it so would require too many addenda to allow actual communication.

 

[oldfogey]

The scientism which is prevalent today relies on exactly the logic that only that those ideas which exist as mathematical or scientific proofs are to be taken seriously. It is most pernicious when it then takes theories it takes to have been “proved” and applies them by analogy to other areas. One example would be evolution, which makes sense in outlining how life forms may evolve, but is then applied in all kinds of ways, eg that our moral order must “evolve,” etc. Most of those analogies are based on a feeling of how things should be (call it emotion if you like) and in fact are contrary to true science, but we see the effects everywhere.

It’s also interesting that somehow the Church is always held to a higher standard than science in these discussions. If the Church develops a fuller understanding of something, it must have been “wrong” previously. Was Newton “wrong” when he wrote his laws? His laws did not explain all motion, as we now know from Einstein’s theory. And are the Newtonian Laws now invalid? No, of course not, and they are still used all the time in their proper context. But if the Church develops a new understanding for something, watch out, she has somehow conspired against truth.

 

[mosher]

Perhaps here - an a little off the subject - is that there seems to be a poor association of what is doctrine as such and what is tradition or ancillary to doctrine. Doctrine in the proper sense is composed of reasoned matters that are contained in the Sacra Doctrina or “Deposit of Faith.” Once these things are declared they cannot be revoked. However all else is subject to possible revision or reformulation.

Here there has been discussion about the evolution of doctrine which is a poor usage in termonoligy (hence the warnings against the words of Telliard de Chardain) because doctrine does not evolve but is static. Rather it is proper to speak of an organic growth in our understanding of the Sacra Doctrina which like the Assent of Carmel is really a recessing ever deeper into the mysteries that we profess.

St. Thomas has stated that a partial truth is not a falsity. When dealing with the investigation of mystery this is ever more true because by definition a mystery can never be fully known. Therefore, it is proper to understand a part of that mystery and label it true but still know very little about it as such. A modern empirical example is the human brain which is largly unknown to the most expert person in the field. However, the distinction ends with the form of investigation. With inductive reasoning such as in modern science we find the possibility to change original premises. However, with deductive reasoning once a proposition is proven to be true it can never be false.

This discussion lends to a subsection of my original post and is the divorce between reason and reason. There is a seperation that has been made in favor of inductive reason ever since the enlightement to the exclusion of deductive reasoning hence it is not understood. Perhaps, the battle for the union of faith and reason will also require a reassertion of the primacy of deductive reasoning over inductive reasoning so that reason itself is intact.

 

[stanley123]

Mystophilus:

Given this definition, I would wholeheartedly agree.

Allow me then to emend my statement to read, “all arguments ever made by any human being anywhere which concern ideas or assertions which are not readily demonstrable either stem from, or are inflected by, emotions.”

It is not perfect, I know, but making it so would require too many addenda to allow actual communication.

Still, in my personal opinion, it would be preferred to say “many arguments” rather than “all arguments” here.

 

[stanley123]

oldfogey:

. It is most pernicious when it then takes theories it takes to have been “proved” and applies them by analogy to other areas. One example would be evolution, which makes sense in outlining how life forms may evolve, but is then applied in all kinds of ways, eg that our moral order must “evolve,” etc. Most of those analogies are based on a feeling of how things should be (call it emotion if you like) and in fact are contrary to true science, but we see the effects everywhere…

Yes, this is quite true. And something that has to be guarded against. For example, you mentioned the theory of relativity. A priest here gave a sermon once on this, and according to him said that just as Einstein has shown motion to be relative we will have to accept that some values are relative also. I wouldn’t think that Einstein had anything like this in mind, when he developed this theory which was constructed with a view to applications in physical motion (special theory) or gravity (general theory).

 

[stanley123]

oldfogey:

Was Newton “wrong” when he wrote his laws? His laws did not explain all motion, as we now know from Einstein’s theory. And are the Newtonian Laws now invalid? No, of course not, and they are still used all the time in their proper context.

Right. I suppose that one can refer to Newton’s second law of motion that Force is the rate of change of momentum with respect to time, which is valid in an inertial system. Of course the inertial mass is taken to be constant in classical mechanics, but in relativity theory you have the rest mass which remains constant, but you also have the dynamic mass which is a function of velocity.

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

However, with deductive reasoning once a proposition is proven to be true it can never be false.

Perhaps, the battle for the union of faith and reason will also require a reassertion of the primacy of deductive reasoning over inductive reasoning so that reason itself is intact.

The problem I see with deduction reasoning is that the entire system is based on certain axioms, or self-evident propostions. It is true of course, that you can have a beautiful system deduced from certain axioms, but what if one of the axioms is a bit wobbly, such as the paralle postulate in Euclidean geometry. A change in one axiom would lead to a different system.
Further, there is the question of the consistency of the axioms and whether or not they really are self-evident and then of course there is the enormous work in setting up your axioms or first principles and then deducing from them.