From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: On faith (was: ... least common denominator)
Summary: Test everything and hold fast to the true.
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:27:42 GMT

In Gendankenland, where there is a chill but the fog is lifting, Russell 
Turpin and I sat down over hot cocoa and buttered scones last night (with 
a brandy nightcap!) and started to hash out his and my contributions 
to our book, in which I will rationally reconstruct Christianity.

It is necessary, for the book to be written at all, that we come to some 
sort of agreement about his introduction, since if we aren't in general
agreement about the introduction, I won't be able to carry it on
from there. And since our wise ecumenical council has wisely commissioned 
us for this work, we carry on in faith (that we can come to some
consensus) despite difficulties.  Unfortunately, although we labored
long into the midnight hours (at least until we ran out of brandy), 
there are still some problems. Maybe the gentle readers can help. 
---------

The first issue, as I see it, is that while the council has given
Mr Turpin the mandate doing something about the lowest common 
denominator, we're still at odds as to What That Is, and What's
To Be Done About It. Maybe we should ask the council What They Meant.

Yet Mr Turpin's 3 points, as he originally offered them, looked to me
promising but problematic. I think the gist of his idea is: 'there
can be no rational reconstruction of Christianity which would deprive
an adherent of his or her intellectual integrity'. If so, I can work
with that.  Mr Turpin's original starting point was:

>>  o  It is better to retain one's intellectual integrity than 
>>     take *any* belief on faith.

After some discussion, Mr Turpin summarizes with:

>>The universal failure of apologists to find a kind of faith
>>that supports religious belief without being contrary to reason
>>makes it a word that should raise flags for any critical and
>>rational reader.  

And what of my examples? I think that (and I'm not going to
offer a systematic definition here; try Kung and Barth; and esp.
Martin Buber, Two_Types_of_Faith) as I wrote 
to Mr Turpin in this forum more than two years ago, in my view religious 
faith is most like hopeful trust in a person. I have not claimed faith
is a specie of knowledge. Thus my examples: my 'parents' (2 specific
people) could in the actual case quite easily be neither of them 
related to be in the way I've always been told (that they are my
natural parents in the usual mode). My 'real mother' could be
my 'Aunt Peggy' (my mother's identical twin) and my 'real father'
could be my 'Uncle Kenny' (my father's brother and my Aunt Peggy's
husband, who lived in poverty around the time I was born). Yet
I accept without proof the story I have been told, despite living
in a world where adults lie to children, young and grown, about
their actual parentage. Is this irrational?

I have a similar trust in the perfect marital fidelity of my 
wife, who (as could I) could have a fling or two with a vanishingly
small chance of discovery. Is this irrational?

I think religious faith is very similar to these examples. One 
difference is that the existence of the object of my faith 
(in whom I'm trusting; God) is disputable. This dispute is not 
the essential aspect of religious faith; to go back to my
example, at this moment, I have the faith in my wife I mentioned- 
but for all I know, she may have been killed in a car accident 
(thus my faith has no object, in real time). Do I thus have no
faith? Is my faith irrational, or just ignorant? The other 
difference, in a Christian context, is that our religious faith
is intrinsically hopeful.

This is a lot of words, but since Mr Turpin brought in faith
in the first place (saying we ought to avoid it), I thought it
necessary to spell out in what way I think that 'rational 
religious faith' is not an empty set (as Mr Turpin apparently
sees it as being). For now, it's a sidetrack that I don't see
much use in driving down. 

--------

My proposal is that, in order to go on, we should blow away
point 1 and see if Mr Turpin can write a workable introduction
simply out of points 2 and 3. Esp. point 2 ; 
this, in the original, was:

	o One should believe only when one has critically
	  examined the issues and the evidence seems
	  sufficient and clear. This is also the only way
	  one should convince others.

(Which may well contain the useable parts of point 1 by implication)

My suggested emendation to this is on record. 

>	o Whenever possible, one should believe when one
>	  has critically examined the issues and the
>	  evidence seems sufficient and clear.

In hope and trust,

Dave Davis


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc