[lit-ideas] Re: Faith
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:33:26 -0400
Paul Stone wrote:
"There's always a reason. The reason you like chocolate ice cream is because
you DO. That's your preference. That is a decision you made when you compare
the two."
Actually, no. I don't decide to like chocolate, I just do. That is, I
couldn't just decide that today I will prefer whatever flavour Paul prefers.
In fact, I can't decide anything with regards to specific preferences though
over time my decisions would affect my preferences. But a more pressing
problem is Paul's use of the word 'reason'. That I prefer chocolate is not
a reason for my liking chocolate. It isn't a reason at all, but a
description. If it would be a reason, it could be a reason for Paul. But
my preferring chocolate is not a reason for Paul to prefer chocolate. Paul
earlier urged more care in talking of reason and rationality and I would
encourage such care.
Paul again:
"I would, however, go a little further and say that your love for chocolate
is NOT faith-based."
Never said it was and I have no idea why Paul brings up the matter of faith.
The issue I was addressing was the matter of whether everything that isn't
rational is irrational. My point was that very little of what matters in
life is rational and very little of that is irrational. That is, rational
and irrational cover a very small part of life. Nothing here involving
faith. But my guess is that Paul really wants to talk about faith.
Paul again:
"[the relationship between faith and reason] really is inexplicable."
I don't think that word means what Paul thinks it means especially since I
had just explicated one way of articulating that relationship. Paul doesn't
have to accept it but it strikes me as just silly to claim that it is
inexplicable. Here again more attention to reason would be helpful.
Paul concludes:
"Like I said, the only way you could be a rational human being and still
have faith is if there was no REASON to have faith."
So you say but that doesn't make it so. Here millenia of history
demonstrate how wrong Paul is. I realize that most 'enlightened' Westerners
have a phobia of Islam but Shia'a Islam is a remarkable instance of a
thorough commitment to the necessity of faith being rational.
I am curious, Paul. Why, in the face of my arguing that in Christianity
faith and reason must be reconciled, do you as a non-believer insist that
believers must hold that faith and reason can't be reconciled? I mean, the
facts are what they are but you seem to be insisting that they can't be.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
