david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (04/05/84)
[munch] Lisa Manchester posted a short note: > I think Thomas Aquinas said the definitive word on this > subject a few hundred years ago: > "You cannot arrive at faith by reason." To which Rich Rosen replied: > Yes, and with this in mind there is no reason to have faith > in things that cannot be justified by reason and logic. Here is a model which may help: (No)<....reason....><...faith....>(Yes) The reality of the situation is that things aren't black and white. This can apply to non-religious things as well. In the above graph, Rich would probably say that (for Christianity) the "reason" line is shorter than the "faith" line. On the other hand, I'm sure there are many examples, and non-religious ones, where, for Rich and others, the "reason" line is longer than the "faith" line but the premise is accepted on faith. Evolution, the Big Bang theory, and Quantum Physics are possible examples. Rich's actual complaint, I believe, is twofold: 1) people start at (Yes) and work backwards, and 2) the amount of evidence/data/reason/logic to support the leap of faith required to (Yes) (correct me if I have mistaken your position, Rich). It is interesting, though, to note the words of Job: "Can one by searching find God?" The answer is no. Becoming a Christian (at least, for me) requires God to reach down from the (Yes) to assist the individual to make that last step. This faith is a gift from God, and is a step into the light, not a leap into darkness. I welcome constructive criticism of my crude model. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/09/84)
Though I had a bit of trouble at first deciphering what you meant, David, by a "reason line" and a "faith line", I now see the model more clearly, and yes, you have hit the nail on the head. (Of course, you then fall into some old traps a la self-referentially quoting the Bible...) With your permission, I would like to expand and clarify it. It can be assumed that there is a mystical "line" or "bridge" between disbelief and belief. To move from the "disbelief" end of the line (the natural starting point when no evidence is present) to the "belief" end of the line, the "bridge" must be built. The method of building the bridge is through reason and logic (the "reason line"). If you run out of raw material (reason) from which to make your bridge, you would have to "leap" across the remaining abyss (the well-known "leap of faith"). As David says, two points of "complaint" are the size of the remaining abyss, and the people who build the bridge from the "wrong" side. > Rich's actual complaint, I believe, is twofold: 1) people start at (Yes) > and work backwards, and 2) the amount of evidence/data/reason/logic to > support the leap of faith required to (Yes) (correct me if I have mistaken > your position, Rich). It is interesting, though, to note the words of Job: > "Can one by searching find God?" The answer is no. Becoming a Christian > (at least, for me) requires God to reach down from the (Yes) to assist > the individual to make that last step. This faith is a gift from God, and > is a step into the light, not a leap into darkness. And again, this assumes that what you experienced was external and real rather than internal and imagined. I'm still looking for the "reason" that a "leap of faith" was/should be taken. ("Because it brings you closer to the truth" is not an acceptable answer, since nothing has been shown to be "the truth".) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr