Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

On the rational dimension of Christian faith

By George Virsik - posted Friday, 15 November 2019


Like a piece of paper, on which I write $100”, is only a symbol of the monetary value, whereas a banknote issued by the Reserve Bank of Australia, that also carries thisinscription, has an actual value, the face value of the note. The basic difference between the two is not visible to natural science, eg is not given by the chemical composition of the two notes. And, let me add, there would be no practical difference between the two notes fora Robinson Crusoeliving outside “civilised”society.

This interpretation of the Zen saying, applied to Christian faith, reminds one of what the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur calls the passage from First (pre-critical), to Second (post-critical), Naiveté. He calls the intermediate state of ones mind the desert of criticism” that an educated believer has to cross to reach the intellectually more rewarding stage of the Second Naiveté. Only a few succeed (cf What is the Second Naiveté? by Linards Jansons):

For some, there is no further stage, for having perished in the desert of criticism, faith has come to an end. For others, the response is to beat a hasty retreat out of the desert; or, having gazed upon its arid terrain from afar, guard its entrance lest any hapless sheep wander into it and join the bones of liberal scholars littering its landscape. Still others concede that the insights of criticism are very interesting at a professional level, even while nurturing the pre-critical oasis of their personal faith. Alternatively, some assert that because the things of God are inaccessible to the sinful mind, the desert is nothing but a mirage, a hazy reflection of fallen reason. Yet another reaction could be described as meta-critical, seeking to expose the inconsistencies and dead ends of the critical spirit, especially when critical methodology assumes the exalted status of a critical ideology.

Advertisement

Each one of these impediments to a successful crossing of the desert has probably its own psychological explanation - dependent on personal experience, education, cultural, environment,  historical background, etc - which I am not going into.

To cross the desert successfully means to decide to one’s intellectual satisfaction which of the concepts and propositions of the First Naivetésurvive only as symbols, metaphors, analogies, etc,  and which the believer accepts as valid on their face value (cf the above metaphor with the $100 notes).  What survives only as a symbol, and what the believer accepts as a value (or information) on its own, is a personal decision (where the other two dimensions of faith play a role). In particular, one should not seek confirmation (or refutation) of such decision in natural science. Those who successfully cross will still need to keep on looking back at the intellectually unsophisticated (literal?) stage of their First Naiveté, in order to keep their faith spiritually and culturally anchored. Of course, for an educated adult convert this hindsight has only an indirect significance since there are no personal recollections. Finally, the successful should be aware that theirs does not have to be the only path through the desert leading to this Second Naivetéstage of one’s mind.

The basic assumption for such success is the theist assumption (cf my "The theist-atheist encounter"), ie belief in God who communicates with His creation, including each individual person. The acceptance of this basic assumption is different from the acceptance of the social usefulness of religion, in particular Christianity, that recently even Richard Dawkins seems to admit. Similarly eg Marcelo Gleiser. However, an atheist or agnostic talking about religion is like a blind physicist talking about colour: he/she might know more about the subject matter than the average person but will neither be able to experience colour,  nor fully understand its impact on a sighted person’s perception of (physical in this case) reality.

Of course, there are “philosophically inclined” and “disinclined” individuals on both sides of the theist/atheist divide. Nevertheless, I would argue that faith in Something that transcends humanity (be it God or a psychological substitute) is needed for the proper functioning and survival of a civilisation. In the same sense that (pure) mathematics is needed for the proper “functioning” of our understanding of physics. However, personal faith on its own - as intellectually and spiritually satisfying as it might be - WITHOUT a communitarian context (ie religion, organised or not, as a social phenomenon) is as little sufficient for this proper functioning of a society, as are purely mathematical models of physical reality WITHOUT supporting observations and predictions for a proper understanding of physical reality. This - the social function of religion - is more related to the other two dimensions of faith or religion mentioned at the beginning.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

20 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

George Virsik is a retired mathematician from Monash University living in Germany since 2000. He can be contacted at gvirsik@t-online.de.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by George Virsik

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 20 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy