From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: On faith (was: ... least common denominator)
Summary: trimming unprofitable branches
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:32:12 GMT

I had thought this thread dormant, but perhaps not:

Kent Sandvik writes, 

>I agree, if he [Tillich] wanted to make his point that faith supersedes
>rationality/irrationality, he had to use rational tools for this.
> 
>If this was the case, faith would be taken for granted, and the 
>discussion was not needed at all! 

I don't follow what you mean here. I'm more of a Barthian than
a Tillichiler, so I don't really know what T. may have meant.
But what could be meant by 'faith transcending rationality' ?
(I think 'supercedes' is connotatively wrong, at least). If 
a religious faith were held to transcend rationality, what else
could be said about it? I suppose this goes off into mysticism,
and farther from my original point that there can be a 
rationally held religious faith, analogous to hopeful trust in
a person, but Kent's approach would seem to rule out all
transcendence, categorically, which seems excessive. Doesn't
QED transcend the Newtonian physics one learns in junior high?

Kent goes on,
 
>And now theists would get in stating that agnostics/atheists
>have faith in gravity. 

This seems to be building a straw man, since in the present 
discussion no one had brought this in, except Kent. Earlier
in the discussion it was pointed out that theistic (esp.
Xtian) apologists often appear to employ amphiboly in
defining religious faith. The issue is whether there *can be*
a rationally reconstructed Xtianity, not whether some
theories of it fail to avoid inconsistency. 

>In other words there are many premisses nearly all human
>beings could agree upon, but in the case of religion we don't.
>This clearly shows that religion is a personal attribute, and 
>attempts to streamline it using universal doctrines are always
>doomed to fail, ultimately. 

Do you mean to imply that all those things about which human
beings disagree are merely personal attributes? I don't think
this is clear at all from the foregoing. I think the data
shows that religion is a highly corporate attribute, that 
shows up in various human communities, in addition to whatever
festoonings among individuals it may show. Try Max Weber.
 
In response to Kent's article, Eric Sieferman writes, 
 
>Yes.  And, the "faith" in gravity is of a totally different
>kind than a believer's faith in a deity.  

Which has him agreeing with Kent's characterization of religious 
faith. The distinction between what may be meant by 'faith' is
what got us all going down this line to begin with. A 
rational religious faith would not be the same as a rational
faith in gravity, except as pertains to their rationality, 
and the attitude of trust one would take, having decided for
the specific belief. 
 
And, from Eric's .sig, 
>       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.

Truly; of course, 'A Truth is still a Truth, even if you
			do not believe it.'

Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD: 

For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds,
Lillies that fester, smell far worse then weeds.
			WS, Sn. 146