Reasoning our way to faith
Bookworm on Sep 21 2006 at 3:59 pm | Filed under: America, Islam, Religion
Being Jewish, I can’t reach Patrick’s ultimate conclusion that “Jesus is the answer,”* but I sure can agree with everything else in his post. He explains why we must support the Pope’s thesis that reason and religion have to take a role in public debate today because our enemies, using hatred and irrationality, are placing religion in the forefront of world politics:
I bring all this up because theology matters, and never more so than today, when a suave despot can pray openly before delegates at the United Nations for the return of the “Twelth Imam” while doing everything possible to hasten that return, which (oddly) seems to depend at least in part on whether the Iranian government can enrich uranium.
With rhetoric about “infidels” flying around and a so-called “Islamic Bomb” on the horizon, conversation about God can’t be relegated to dorm rooms, coffee shops, and pulpits. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State probably wishes that we all had ruby-crusted slippers and a ticket back to some mythical place where Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists tells them to do whatever it is they do behind closed doors far away. Sadly for that organization, all President Jefferson actually did was reassure the Baptists of his time that the First Amendment kept the federal government from establishing a national church. As Mark Levin has pointed out, two days after writing to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson attended church services held in the House of Representatives.
In other words: faith in the public square? No problem. In fact, it’s a good idea, as more than a few of the Founding Fathers said. But now we must sort through mutually incompatible statements of faith while we strive for peace. Over against the Christian notion of faith and reason as analagous to “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth,” Fr. Schall characterizes the Islamic notion of God as making reason superflous, because God is pure will. I don’t know whether that summary (which Ryan Anderson echoes at First Things) is correct, but it certainly squares with what I’ve read elsewhere. Islam is big on divine sovereignty, and apparently its conception of divine sovereignty works to the exclusion of all else, which is why Allah is not “bound” to avoid even self-contradiction.
You can, and should, read the rest here.
You may also want to read Stephen Carter’s still timely book, The Culture of Disbelief
____________________________________
* I do know that, if Jesus is indeed the answer, I’ll have some fancy footwork to do at the end of days. I can only hope that C.S. Lewis was correct in the theology he spelled out in The Last Battle
Email This Post To A Friend
13 Responses to “Reasoning our way to faith”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you for the link, and the kind words. Come the end of days, I don’t think Jesus will forget his earthly identity as a Jewish carpenter. You’ll probably also have his mother in your corner.
Book,
Indeed your Messiah Jesus (Jehovah Yeshuah) IS the only answer. He came to and through the Jew and His salvation was “to the Jew first and then the Gentile.”
Better to put your faith in the Bible (written for the most part by Jewish men) rather than C.S. Lewis. Believe in your Messiah. Reason outside of faith won’t cut it.
We love you Book,
ExP (Jack and Wonderful Wife)
http://www.WeaverClan.com
Thanks, for Patrick’s words, Bookworm. It has made me see the threat of Ahmadinejad more starkly. He is threatening the world up front. And all the infidels around him cheered Death.
Scholars do understand better the relationship between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. It’s clear, however, that this evil figure sees Judeo Christianity as the first enemy.
Having spent several weeks observing the 18th century (reading McCullough’s ‘John Adams,’ Bookworm has referred earlier)I feel certain that the men gathered for the Declaration of Independence did so in God’s name. Neither that document, nor indeed any part of the formation of our country, could have proceeded without a similar basic understanding of God. McCullough assumes as much, often seeing God with the common appellation of that time: “Providence,” or the the ways of God.
Adams’ beliefs were not those of Jefferson/ nor Benjamin Rush/ nor Washington/ nor Thomas Paine. We quibble about their personal approaches to God today, inflicting post- modern, relativistic understanding on them. But we must grant them their terms.
Michael and Jana Novak observe in “Washington’s God” that even proclaimed atheist Paine would be out of place in today’s confused secular morass. Perhaps, I would venture, even find himself accused of having Christian sympathies by today’s barbaric Marxists and nihilists.
All of these above makers of America were civilized men. Jefferson and Adams would embark on a close friendship after their partisan days.
Importantly, Adams, like Washington (see Novak’s book),would strongly proclaim religious freedom.
Adams, who would write the Mass constitution, would also attempt to form a unique bill of religious liberty for his state.
Notably Washington and Adams would likewise warmly write to/address Jewish congregations and leaders. Washington, we know, would take time to visit during his farewell journey and thank the prominent Jewish patriot who immensely helped in the most difficult task of financing the young Republic.
Book,
I’m a Christian, and I take it seriously, but I’m also a fan of Billy Joel - “it’s all rock and roll, to me.” I cannot but believe that God judges us by our behavior, not our team affiliation.
Doh! I hit submit and realized I forgot an important point: Jesus was the first to point out that he wasn’t telling us anything we hadn’t already heard from the prophets and rabbis.
I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the answer, but I also think The Last Battle portrays the reality we will find at the end of time, so I have no worries about the eternal fate of Bookworm or many others of my friends and family.
I have to admit that I sometimes wonder how I’ll do with the fancy footwork if it turns out that some of THEM followed a path closer to His mark than I in this life. Interesting…..
Michael–
If you really take Christianity seriously (and if you are a Christian why feel the need to say you take it seriously?), you know that if God judges us by our behavior we’re ALL going to Hell. That’s right, every last one of us.
That’s why it was necessary for Jesus to come. Yes, our behavior matters, but He knew that we’re not capable of doing it by ourselves. He said, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Whether there are other ways of being saved “through” Jesus besides being a Christian has been a matter for much debate.
One thing is certain. Fancy footwork won’t do it.
One way you could see the end, is to be there at the end. Technology is probably the only means to accomplish that. I’m not a believer in Original Sin, Trish, which separates my philosophy from many Christians.
The whole thing about Original Sin and Jesus wiping the stain clean, does not exactly make sense. Sure they tell me the Bible says so and so, but it isn’t consistent in enough frameworks.
To Michael & Earl: Amen, brothers! Well said.
Ymarsakar–
I wasn’t talking about original sin. I don’t know what you mean by “frameworks.” Do you read the Bible? Perhaps you should, if you wish to comment on it.
Let me ask you, and everybody else, a question: do you really think that it is possible for you, or any other human being, to come up to God’s standards by your own efforts? Really?
Trish, If you can’t prove God exists and that he is the version of God that you subscribe to, how can you be so highly opnionated on the subject? According to the Bible, Elijah had to prove God’s power to the people in a contest against Baal and he did so. Jesus performed miracles and people believed. Doubting Thomas needed to see the marks on his hands before he believed. If that was true for a Saint, you can understand that some people might having your “Because the Bible tells me so” argument a little unconvincing. Try a miracle.
Christianity is based upon “faith”, ravana. Some of us get it, others don’t, and many more refuse to get it. Mathematicians and physicists debate whether there are up-to 13 dimensions of existance but we humans can only perceive perhaps 3-1/2 (the last 1/2 referring to “time”). My faith is very real and tangible because of how He has spoken to me. I am neither smart enough or good enough to know who is “saved” or not “saved”, but I do know that Jesus gave us the two most important commandments to live by and they apply both to gentile and Jew: to love God above all and to “love each other as I have loved you”.
I wasn’t criticizing you Trish, but just bringing up something I’ve always thought about Original Sin.
Is Original Sin connected to what you said, Trish? Yes, in my view, because of what you said about Jesus saving people with his death. That was because Original Sin prevented humanity from cleansing that original sin, of Adam and Eve. If I don’t believe in Original Sin, then obviously I cannot believe in Jesus Christ saving humanity with his crucifixion. You don’t have to be talking about Original Sin for me to say I don’t believe in it. I may disbelieve in something you have said because I, as an individual, don’t believe in Original Sin.
But I stopped short of making the connection. If you have your own interpretation, I will hear it with an open mind if you are interested in describing it.
Frameworks simply mean, when you compare an event or a claim with other things that you know to be true, does it fit together in a way that makes logical sense, common sense, and adheres to the bare minimum standard of rationality and probablity?
See, my friend Gortok once said that the God in the Old Testament killed off a lot of children in that plague, and this was Good because God did it. I don’t think I can accept that something is good just because God did it, based upon the premise that God is omnipotently powerful and infinitely good and omnisciently wise. This even assumes the book got it right. If God is so powerful, how the heck can mortals accurately describe what he did or did not do? *shrugs* Frameworks.
I not only read the bible, stopped after Genesis was over though, but I talk to a lot of theologians or amateur theologians you might say.
Let me ask you, and everybody else, a question: do you really think that it is possible for you, or any other human being, to come up to God’s standards by your own efforts? Really?
You mean the standard of perfection? While I believe in a God, I don’t believe that humanity will ever achieve Godhood. If salvation means being with God, then I don’t believe humanity can ever be with God if that means losing our humanity. Were we with God when Adam and Eve were ignorant of the knowledge of Good and Evil, before Original Sin? Perhaps, most likely even. But if it means giving up the knowledge of Good and Evil, to be with God and to come up to God’s standards, then is the price worth the reward? I think it unlikely.
I’m not with Ravana, after all, I’m not basing my argument and belief on “God doesn’t exist” or “you have not proved God’s existence”. That doesn’t matter to me, after all. I wouldn’t believe even if a miracle occured. Because the logic and reasoning that prevent me from believing, is not going to be convinced by some deus ex machina trick. Miracles are a sign of power, but not a sign of wisdom or knowledge, or goodness even, or specifically why things were that way or should be this way. Miracles will allow me to believe in the existence of God and the power of God, but it will not convince me to be with God or to believe God is the infinite good.
Personally, I think God is more of a Force of Nature and of the universe, time and causality, than infinite mercy. Dark and Light, Good and Evil, matter and anti-matter. These things give me hints that God, the ultimate power, has a dual nature. Complimenting themselves, greater than the sum of its parts.
I cannot believe that anything to infinity, is a good thing. Not even infinite Goodness and Mercy and Compassion. Or not specially those. Rage, violence, evil, ruthlessness, and cruelty have their places, well deserved if I may say so.