I've done three articles now on the subject of the claim that faith is irrational.
I was particularly piqued by the suggestion that faith, any faith, my faith was dangerous and that there seemed to be a problem with faith in power. This seemed to suggest to me that believers should be in some sense controlled.
However leaving aside that emotive issue what I have tried to do is a three step argument.
I have questioned the existence of 'rationality' in an objective sense (pointing out the impossibility of standing sub specie æterni. I have also questioned whether rational is always good since rational thought is also something engaged in by unethical people with unethical rational outcomes.
I have argued that in Aquinas' third way there is a rational way to argue in the existence of God, and that in the absence of a complete refutation of that the decision to believe in God is rational. I could have gone further and pointed out that no less and philosophical authority than Richard Swinburn (Emeritus Professor at Oxford) has argued a rational case for major Christian doctrines and so has done more than just argue for theism. As long as a rational argument can be made it is perfectly rational to accept that argument no matter if others disagree with it.
I have finally argued that to use the language of irrationality is unhelpful in the current political landscape.
I have not tried to persuade anyone indeed I'm not sure given the intransigent nature of the opinions I have come up against that it would be possible to persuade anyone. I was simply trying to point out why I don't accept this 'dogma' of Dawkins. That's all I've done. Although given the nature of the intransigence I might reflect some more on how and if we change our opinions another entry.
I think the route I've taken has been original, whereas the line 'faith is irrational' is pure Dawkins.
I would say in closing that I am a reasonably educated person who usually thinks carefully, has spent something over 10 years considering these questions and examining them with people (some of whom had quite a few degrees) I do not recognise the irrational person they are looking for.
Anyway back to what I was saying before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi again :)
I found your last few posts interesting (even if some of them rather went over my head).
I'm still confused as to how the cosmological argument doesn't end up with an essential being being necessary to be the cause of the essential being, or, if the essential being can contain its own cause, why the universe can't do that?
If you could explain that in words I can understand, I'd be a happy camper...
Blimey, not sure I'm allowed in here, I don't even understand Matthew's question! All I wanted to say was that many humanists seem to conveniently sidestep their overt disbelief in God being as much an expression of faith as other people's overt belief in him. I don't see why everyone doesn't join me up on this fence, it's very comfortable and there's plenty of room ;-)
I think you should just go back to talking section 4!!
matthew: Hume did in fact ask "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?", but he did not know about big bang cosmology. If the universe began to exist then it, by definition, cannot be necessarily existent. I hope that clears things up.
the "irrationality" argument is a last straw attempt to try and say that the aethistic faith isn't actually a faith.
I disagree with you, Yellow, that the Cosmological argument is the best proof of God - it's quite funny though, as a varient of it is used to try and disprove God "what set off the big bang, then, if there is no God?" "nothing" is exactly the same reasoning as "what created God, then, if God created the universe?" "nothing".
The best argument is the historical facts that Jesus died, was buried and rose. The Christian perspective on the physical side of what happened at Easter has been bombarded for nearly 2000 years (since the AD30s) and has survived to this day. Stuff like swoon theory, theft of the body, etc have failed to come up with a rational alternative to the story as Peter and the rest of the early church taught it.
Post a Comment