Faith and Reason...and Other Mindless Trivia: Part I

Forgive me, Throng, for I have sinned.

I lied to you and must now repent. I will not be able to keep my ignorant bloviations limited to a mere three posts per book. Disregard that last post. It was a stupid idea full of arbitraria. Let's put this shameful episode behind us and move on. I humbly throw myself at your feet and beg for mercy. On the other hand, if the Throng begins leaving me in droves for publishing multiple posts per chapter, I swear on the Hammer of Thor that I will turn this blog into pure porn. It'll be Spanky's Sparkly Spunkhouse all up in this mug.


The Authors: Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli

The Book: Handbook of Christian Apologetics

The Chapter: 2 - Faith and Reason

Some books are incredibly frustrating, and while I realize I'm only two chapters into this opus by Kreeft and Tacelli (KT from here on), I'm already beginning to show signs of disgruntled fatigue. In my notes (ever-increasingly scrawled with the legibility of heiroglyphics scribbled by Gollum), the recurring theme is that our esteemed authors continually assert that which they are supposed to be demonstrating, namely the existence of God. This occurs numerous times, but a few examples should suffice.

At one point, they refer to God as "the real existing object of faith," and they speak of the Bible as if it were obviously, definitely, unquestionably the very word of God revealed to humankind (30). In a chart demonstrating the relationship of reason and faith, KT assert that, on faith alone, we can understand God's plan to save us, discover how much God loves us, and prove that God is a trinity (33). Later KT approvingly quote Aquinas saying it is not "permissible to believe as false that which we hold by faith, since this is confirmed in a way that is so clearly divine." KT add in brackets, "It is not our faith but its object, God, that justifies our certainty" (38).

Umm...Exclamation point!

When you begin with the assertion that nothing can contradict what is held by faith because it is confirmed in a way that is "so clearly divine" (and what the eff does that even mean?), what's the point of having a discussion? What's the point of even pretending to provide arguments in your favor? To do so is at this point merely a rote walking through the motions of reason and rational argument, a facade, a copaface. With these assertions as their starting points, how open can KT be to the possibility that their God doesn't exist? How can they approach the subject with any sense of detachment or fairness? Perhaps this demonstrates the difference between genuine philosophical examination and partisan apologetics. Apologists are simply out to defend what they believe is true regardless of the facts. Authentic, for realzies rational inquiry requires openness to the possibility that you're wrong. GaspShockHorror!

Anyway, since I've already ruined the surprise and revealed the theme of my overarching response to this chapter, let's get on with the explication and what-nots. Some of what follows (in this and the next couple of posts) will necessarily make reference to points already alluded to above, and better place them in their respective contexts.

Within this chapter, we witness KT attempting to flesh out their earlier contention that faith and reason are allies, perfectly compatible, married even. I was hoping/expecting them to do a better job of defending this position than when they briefly mentioned it in the intro chapter. I don't mean to be a meanard, but I think they fail in this aim.

KT begin by distinguishing the object of faith (all the things believed, all that God has revealed in the Bible) from the act of faith (much stronger than mere belief, religious faith is worth dying for and is lived every moment). They further enumerate four aspects/dimensions of faith:

1. Emotional Faith: feeling assurance, trust, or confidence in a person; includes hope (stronger than a mere wish) and peace (stronger than mere calm)
2. Intellectual Faith: belief; stronger than emotional faith; more stable and unchanging; "the act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe everything God has revealed on the grounds of the authority of the One who revealed it;" this aspect of faith is formulated in propositions and summarized in creeds
3. Volitional Faith: act of the will; a commitment to obey God's will; faithfulness, fidelity; manifest in behavior, good works; a love deeper than a mere feeling; the heart and soul
4. Faith Begins in the Heart: not feeling or emotion, but the center of the soul; where God the Holy Spirit works in us (30-31).

Yet another set of examples of taking God's existence for granted.

KT note that intellectual faith alone is not enough for salvation, but rather must be coupled with heart, with good works. This "heart-faith" is saving faith, "sufficient for salvation, for it necessarily produces the good works of love just as a good tree necessarily produces good fruit" (31).

Again, much of this presupposes the existence of God, which they do a lot in this chapter. 'Tis annoying! I realize that in the next chapter they discuss several arguments for the existence of God, but they should do that before asserting the existence of God. It almost appears that they take God to be axiomatic, as if God's existence doesn't need to be demonstrated but simply accepted and recognized as such. I doubt it was their intention, but this set-up could sway readers later when the actual arguments are presented. These preambilical assertions might serve to bias the audience in favor of God before a single argument is assessed.

When discussing the act of faith, KT say that religious faith is "something to die for and something to live every moment. It is much more than belief, and much stronger, though belief is one of its parts or aspects" (30). It's like, dudes, come on. Surely you're aware of martyrs from religions other than Christianity. Later in the chapter, they assert that the truths of reason cannot contradict the truths of faith. But can the truths of one faith contradict the truths of another faith? In such instances, how are we to determine which is the real true faith? By what criteria do we decide if it's worth dying for?

Besides, many people are willing to die for various things which are not religious faith. Examples: people are willing to die to defend their nation's ideals (like free will and real political stuff like that), people have been killed in defense of science and philosophy, and people have been slain in defense of their loved ones. So religious faith doesn't have a monopoly on being worth dying for or living each day. These noble principles are embodied in many secular ways. These are just a few that came to mind immediately.

The four aspects/dimensions of faith seem to work counter to the goal of harmonizing faith with reason. The descriptions given for emotional and intellectual faith could be taken directly from a manual on how to be gullible and credulous. These are the very opposite of what is taught in critical thinking courses. Not to down-play the potential importance of trust, confidence, hope, or peace, but they should be based (at least to some degree) on reason and held tentatively, with a modicum of reasonable doubt and skepticism. If the object of our trust and confidence betrays that trust, it would be foolish to continue trusting that person. And while it's one thing to have strong beliefs based on reason and evidence (yet remaining capable of relinquishing the strong beliefs in the face of countervailing evidence), it must be recognized that entrenching in one's deep-seated beliefs constitutes a form of bias which prevents us from seeing evidence in a rational, clear-eyed manner. To revel and glory in the fact that one believes x with unchangeable certitude is intellectual suicide, the death of curiosity and open-mindedness.

Furthermore, why is obedience automatically taken to be a good thing or in harmony with reason? If we don't simply assume God exists (and if we don't simply assume God desires or requires our obedience) this seems bizarre to the point of ridiculocity. Perhaps God really wants us to challenge him, stand up to him, show that we can be autonomous adults rather than intellectually/emotionally stunted children reliant on his guidance for the duration of our lives. Perhaps God will dandle and reward the rebels while debasing and defalcating the robots.

And I'm sorry, but it's difficult to take all the heart and soul and Holy Spirit jazz srsly. This sounds more like trite doxology than erudite rationality. More homily and praise and weird speculation than adhering to the principles of logic, ratiocination, and other impressive-sounding words that mean the same thing.

Regarding heart-faith and what may or may not be sufficient for salvation...Is this really what it's all about? If so, this makes Christianity out to be an incredibly egotistical religion. It may be serendipitous that heart-faith also produces good works, but the primary appeal here is quite obviously securing one's seat in Fairyland for all eternity.

What if God were evil? Just a brutal, malicious thug-monkey with no regard for human life, you know, as depicted in his revealed word, the Bible? And what if this evil God required that we behave more like him (slaughtering fools who didn't capitulate and worship him) in order to achieve salvation? Would KT advocate such atrocious behavior? Would you, dear reader, acquiesce to the demands of Mafia God? Do as I say or else?

What a putrid, anti-human, anti-reason creed. Is this really worth dying for? Is it worth living every day?

Wow. Got a little dark there. Bit more melodramatic than I had planned. I'll try to rein it in for the next post, where we'll further discuss KT's missteps in this chapter on faith and reason. Won't you join us? Your very existence may depend on it.

Rev. Lyin-Ass Blogga Fogga, Out!