Faith and Reason- what's the difference?

[Protinus]

I really don't want to point out a difference as much as I would like to say that "faith must rely on reason" and "reason must rely on faith". It is clear (or maybe not so clear) that we Catholics know that the teachings of the Catholic Church depend on "infallible authority". We depend on the pope and the college of Bishops to make definitive and "irrevocable" doctrine that we can accept and apply in our daily lives. We consider that the Holy Scripture is God's word to us and that the pope/college of Bishops are empowered by Sacred Tradition, a true reflection of Christ's teachings.

However, it must be said that Faith and Reason are inextricably linked....and the Church, while teaching "infallible authority" must admit that her own teachings must be "apprehended: by the rational mind (if not fully grasped or comprehended). Faith does not contradict reason- reason does not contradict faith.


therefore, when we see contradictions in teaching, we are obliged to consider the possibilities:

1) we have made logical errors of deduction- the Church will guide us back to aa reasonable explanation.
2)we misinterpreted the teaching- we are really in agreement with the Church actually teaches
3)we have relied on our senses too much and made a false assumption leading to a bad conclusion that contradicts the church.
4) we don't really understand what is infallible teaching or what is infallibly defined.

There might be other things. What I yearn for is that doctrine be explained in a rational framework. While we should be able to discuss with non-believers issues that go beyond reason- showing the interconnected and logically consistent elements of our faith...we also know that there is not one single doctrine in the Church that we should rest blind appeal to authority alone.

[Fantine]

When I was a teenager and lost my faith for almost 15 years, it wasn't because of lack of education. I'd been to Catholic elementary and high school.

Unfortunately, I saw lots of hypocrisy among Catholics, and lots of hypocrisy in the Sisters who taught us in high school. They bent over backwards favoring the wealthiest girls.
They made all the young peppy nuns teach Math and Science, and put Sisters who should have retired twenty years earlier teaching the subjects I loved, English and the Arts. We had a Religion teacher who was so old that one day all the girls faced their desks towards the back of the classroom, and she didn't figure it out for fifteen minutes. The oldest nun was the janitor.

I knew in my heart that God would not want this order to disrespect the women who had served Him all their lives in this way....

And so, my leaving didn't have anything to do with reason.

And my coming back didn't have anything to do with reason (more to do with spiritual experiences of God's presence in my life.)

Personally, I try not to mix faith with reason too much. If I study theology too deeply, I find myself having less and less faith, because I'm thinking about it.....

If there is something I have doubts about, I usually just put it to the back of my mind and concentrate on those aspects of faith which have nurtured and supported me in my relationship with God.

[JasonV]

I don't know what the actual difference may be, but I just got a book entitled: "Truth Vs. Falsehood: How To Tell The Difference" by David Hawkins. Everything, supposedly, can be scaled between 1 and 1000 on it's veracity. I'm looking forward to this and to finding how to apply it to everyday things.

[Protinus]

I don't know what the actual difference may be, but I just got a book entitled: "Truth Vs. Falsehood: How To Tell The Difference" by David Hawkins. Everything, supposedly, can be scaled between 1 and 1000 on it's veracity. I'm looking forward to this and to finding how to apply it to everyday things.


Bring it on after you've read it Jason!!:thumbsup:

I would like to say this...it was a shameless "hook" for a new forum to get the blood pumping:

I really don't want to point out a difference as much as I would like to say that "faith must rely on reason" and "reason must rely on faith".

[Loki]

I agree; I think that being a faithful Catholic need not imply leaving one's brain at the door/holy water font, nor is it solely a cerebral endeavor. A leap of faith needs to be made at some point, but the castle built upon that leap should be internally consistent.

I think I'm at the point of needing to decide whether or not I can make that leap. :/

[Protinus]

I agree; I think that being a faithful Catholic need not imply leaving one's brain at the door/holy water font, nor is it solely a cerebral endeavor. A leap of faith needs to be made at some point, but the castle built upon that leap should be internally consistent.

I think I'm at the point of needing to decide whether or not I can make that leap. :/

gentle sister...this forum was created for you...because it is finally OK to inquire...finally OK to feel right by sharing with others and derive meaning from our faith. We carry each other here...we don't close doors.

[Loki]

gentle sister...this forum was created for you...because it is finally OK to inquire...finally OK to feel right by sharing with others and derive meaning from our faith. We carry each other here...we don't close doors.

You're too good to me, Prot.

[JasonV]

I'm glad you're here too Loki.

[boughtwithaprice]

I am glad that we all are here. We finally have a place on CF, and do not have to feel like spectators; it is now ours

Loki, we have made this place for you and people like you, please come in and enjoy:hug: I know that it is a corny saying from 22yrs ago, but when they made the We Are the World video, the artists were supposedly told to leave their egos at the door:sorry: That is how I feel about this forum, "Egos left at the door, we are here for eachother":)

[Rebekka]

I have a problem with blind obedience, and with authority that doesn't explain their position in a rational manner - not just in a church context but in my entire life. The church has authority and I'm happy to obey, as long as their reason to ask obedience is more than merely "because we say so". Surely there must be a reason why obedience is asked in a certain department - if obedience in a certain thing is important, it should be because it is the right thing to do. That's why I can't accept circular thinking.

I do accept mysteries of the faith, though - you can't understand all dogmas 100% rationally, so I accept them in my humility.

I am someone who needs rationality. I came back to the church (after a lapse of about 10 years) through reason. I had tried to regain my faith by having faith alone, but until my husband (then fiancé) explained to me why he believed - because of reason, because the existence of God makes more sense than atheism - I couldn't believe, and when I listened to my husband's reasoning I finally understood, and came back to Christ. If it weren't for reason, I would still be agnostic. If it weren't for reason, I wouldn't be catholic. I've read so many catholic Bible commentaries and catechisms (I have some old ones that are very elaborate and intelligent), and to me the catholic church represents the reasonable christianity. The church allows thinking. It allows scientific curiosity.

Faith came through reason in my case, and I use reason to defend my faith. And my faith has become the basis of my reasoning.

[Rochir]

I do not think that faith can or even should be based upon reason!

Believing Jesus walked on water defies any natural law we are aware of today, so logically such a feat ist impossible, and reason tell me to rely on what is objectibly possible in Nature!

However, if I wish to believe Jesus did indeed walk across water, I do not need any logioc. I simply believe! :)

However, reason and faith can and should augment each other. I am a scientist and believe in the "truths" of science. However, even knowing than a man cannot walk on water, I could still believe that it was so....

[Rebekka]

I do not think that faith can or even should be based upon reason!
I don't know if it should, but it can - it is, in my case. :)

I've never been an atheist because I think no one can know for sure that God doesn't exist. I was agnostic for years though. I came back to christianity because I think it is far more likely that this world was created by someone than that it all just randomly began. If none of what we see around us was meant to be, then it sure looks like it was - and the chance of all of this being just a coincidence is IMO smaller than that it was created (although I believe in evolution, but it is theistic evolution, so God's plan, intelligent design). So you can say that my faith is based on reason.

And if you believe in an almighty God and you believe that Christ is God, then the walking on water bit isn't impossible at all. The miracle is creation itself, IMO. Someone who can create earth will be able to walk on water, too.

I believe in the gospel because there's pretty good proof that these texts were indeed written in the first century AD. I believe that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure because there is proof in other sources than the gospels (e.g. Flavius Josephus).

[QuantaCura]

(you guys have all the interesting topics--this is one of my favorites :) )

There is a twofold order of knowledge. One level we know through natural reason, the other through divine faith. In addition to the knowledge that can be acquired through natural reason, there are certain things that can only be known because God has revealed them. These we accept through faith--in other words we trust completely in God, as He can neither decieve nor be deceived.

Reason can aid us in understanding better what we accept on faith, but we cannot try and and imagine that reason can master it or come to it apart from faith--as there are true mysteries. Likewise, if our reason tries to create a conflict between what God has revealed and what our reason leads us to believe, we should choose faith over reason, as human reason can err while God cannot.

I know some people of faith here like to use the label "Liberal" but that can be confusing. In the 18th and 19th centuries (and really into our time) there arose a movement that sought to attack and do away with the second order of knowledge (or at least absorb it into the first). Their position was that all knowedge could be acquired through natural means. This philisophy was known as "Liberalism." Given the wide variety of meanings the term "liberal" has, especially today, the more precise terminology might be "Naturalism" or "Rationalism" but historically, it has been called Liberalism, even if modern-day people who call themselves "Liberal" don't actually reduce Divine Revelation to solely a matter of natural reason.

(for more understanding on these issues, I highly recommend the documents of the First Vatican Council, and John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio :thumbsup: )

[Irenaeus]

Protinus,

While we should be able to discuss with non-believers issues that go beyond reason- showing the interconnected and logically consistent elements of our faith...we also know that there is not one single doctrine in the Church that we should rest blind appeal to authority alone.

I'm not a fideist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do question the idea that every article of faith should be able to be apprehended by the human intellect, at least as a moral necessity rather than an absolute one. There are matters to which we at times must assent blindly to what is apparent darkness. There is the type of blindness which comes from the internal fault of the eye, and that which comes from the brightness of its object. Both occur in the supernatural life.

Take for example the Trinity, a de fide dogma which could not be known to any man unless it was revealed to him.

After this dogma had been revealed to man in many times and places throughout salvation history and finally promulgated by the First Nicene Council, we have the duty of defending the doctrine to the unbelieving. This does involve appealing to reason, but it also involves a dimension of faith, an assent of the intellect in auctoritatem Dei revelantis. No matter how many times we hold up a three-leaf clover, or make comparisons to interlocking triangles or water, these concepts do not in themselves allow the intellect to lay hold upon the object of faith.

To this day as Catholics we believe that the Incarnation is a fact, that God became Man in our Lord Jesus Christ. Although this is dogma, many theologians have, in a sense, attempted "to justify the ways of God to man", from Anselm's Cur Deus Homo to Thomas Aquinas' reflections on the motives of the Incarnation. They spoke of its reasonability, but all could say with Paul, "how inscrutible are his designs!"

I think that in a discussion of the relation of faith and reason, of course John Paul II's Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" is an essential piece. Reason seeks understanding (ratio quaerens intellectum) but faith illuminates reason and elevates it to truth not merely because of its reasonability, but because of its worthiness of belief, which brings us back to motives of credibility. This inevitably involves authority. Some I believe have an inordinate fear of the "obedience of faith," because it seems to bypass the intellect, but the very supernatural act of faith involves an assent of the intellect, which although it attempts to apprehend the mystery according to its received lights, cannot grasp the truths of faith on its own initiative.

I thank you all for your respectful presence and I hope we can engage in meaningful dialogue.

[Protinus]

Reason can aid us in understanding better what we accept on faith, but we cannot try and and imagine that reason can master it or come to it apart from faith--as there are true mysteries. Likewise, if our reason tries to create a conflict between what God has revealed and what our reason leads us to believe, we should choose faith over reason, as human reason can err while God cannot.



According to Session III, Chapter IV, Canon 5 and 6 of the First Vatican Council:Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.Canon 10 continues:Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.I read this as we are bound to avoid blind obedience to authority that denies the very value of human reason on one hand and the neccesity of rational theory over tried and true dogma on the other. Therefore, as Catholics, we must realize that faith informs reason...and even supports reason.

[QuantaCura]

I read this as we are bound to avoid blind obedience to authority that denies the very value of human reason on one hand and to avoid the neccesity of rational theory over tried and true dogma on the other. Therefore, as Catholics, we must realize that faith informs reason...and even supports reason.

(I added the bolded, underlined part. I think that is of sense of what you were trying to say). I think that is a fair assessment. We acknowledge that both are gifts from God and that both work together in harmony.

I think Bl. John XXIII explains the relationship well, especially the importance of faith:

Ad Petri Cathedram (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23petri.htm)--On Truth, Unity, and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity (this is one of my favorite papal encyclicals of all time):

7. And yet, God gave each of us an intellect capable of attaining natural truth. If we adhere to this truth, we adhere to God Himself, the author of truth, the lawgiver and ruler of our lives. But if we reject this truth, whether out of foolishness, neglect, or malice, we turn our backs on the highest good itself and on the very norm for right living.

8. As We have said, it is possible for us to attain natural truth by virtue of our intellects. But all cannot do this easily; often their efforts will result in a mixture of truth and error. This is particularly the case in matters of religion and sound morals. Moreover, we cannot possibly attain those truths which exceed the capacity of nature and the grasp of reason, unless God enlightens and inspires us. This is why the word of God, "who dwells in light inaccessible,"[2] in His great love took pity on man's plight, "became flesh and dwelt among us,"[3] that He might "enlighten every man who cometh into the world"[4] and lead him not only to full and perfect truth, but to virtue and eternal happiness. All men, therefore, are bound to accept the teaching of the gospel. For if this is rejected, the very foundations of truth, goodness, and civilization are endangered.

9. It is clear that We are discussing a serious matter, with which our eternal salvation is very intimately connected. Some men, as the Apostle of the Gentiles warns us, are "ever learning yet never attaining knowledge of the truth."[5] They contend that the human mind can discover no truth that is certain or sure; they reject the truths revealed by God and necessary for our eternal salvation.

10. Such men have strayed pathetically far from the teaching of Christ and the views expressed by the Apostle when he said, "Let us all attain to the unity of the faith and of the deep knowledge of the son of God . . . that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine devised in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, according to the wiles of error. Rather are we to practice the truth in love, and grow up in all things in him who is the head, Christ. For from him the whole body (being closely joined and knit together through every joint of the system according to the functioning in due measure of each single part) derives its increase to the building up of itself in love."[6]

I think Bl. Pius IX also sums it up nicely:

Qui Pluribus (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quiplu.htm)--On Faith and Religion

"They give such reciprocal help to each other that true reason shows, maintains and protects the truth of the faith, while faith frees reason from all errors and wondrously enlightens, strengthens and perfects reason with the knowledge of divine matters."

:)

[Protinus]

(I added the bolded, underlined part. I think that is of sense of what you were trying to say

yes, I'm sorry, that is what I was trying to convey.

I was trained as a scientist and I am always drinking up news about scientific development. We can not make assumptions about science...it is rigorously peer reviewed and we depend on objectivity when we learn things scientifically. We can take these skills and apply them to what is infallibly taught as we try to undertand the intended meaning of doctrinal pronouncements.

When there is conflict btween faith and reason, it is a problem with our understanding of faith or it is a problem with our understanding of reason.

[Protinus]

However, reason and faith can and should augment each other. I am a scientist and believe in the "truths" of science. However, even knowing than a man cannot walk on water, I could still believe that it was so....

agreebly, I'm highly oriented to the secular sciences....and I believe that we can use scientific discernment to inquire about infallible teaching.

[Rebekka]

According to Session III, Chapter IV, Canon 5 and 6 of the First Vatican Council:Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
(...)
Canon 10 continues:Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.I read this as we are bound to avoid blind obedience to authority that denies the very value of human reason on one hand and the neccesity of rational theory over tried and true dogma on the other. Therefore, as Catholics, we must realize that faith informs reason...and even supports reason.
This is what my view is, too, and what I meant to say in my post. This is how I believe reason can help faith. :)

[Loki]

According to Session III, Chapter IV, Canon 5 and 6 of the First Vatican Council:Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.Canon 10 continues:Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.I read this as we are bound to avoid blind obedience to authority that denies the very value of human reason on one hand and the neccesity of rational theory over tried and true dogma on the other. Therefore, as Catholics, we must realize that faith informs reason...and even supports reason.

This I will always have difficulty with.

My reason tells me there's no inherent purpose to life or existence, and yet I think I am making a leap of faith in believing that there is. My reason sees no need for a creator of the universe, but I can suspend disbelief about this topic.

I just hope that this is enough.

[Protinus]

This I will always have difficulty with.

My reason tells me there's no inherent purpose to life or existence, and yet I think I am making a leap of faith in believing that there is. My reason sees no need for a creator of the universe, but I can suspend disbelief about this topic.

I just hope that this is enough.

Loki: there are many "truths" are not rational deductions. Many things that rationally derived are not fully comprehended. For example, beauty, love and freedom are experienced truths that go beyond reason. The number, "infinity" is apprehnded by the rational mind, but no mind can comprehend infinity.

However the world is not random chaotic - reason is born of the imagination. We consider the the real world and that reason ITSELF is valid and true...even apart from our imagination.

So...if we approach reality with a belief that the world was created by One...One with a mind that reasons like our own who is albeit infinitely more intelligent, then we presuppose that all things make sense to this mind...and our own.

Otherwise, if we presuppiose that the world and the universe was NOT created by a rational intelligence, there is no reason to accept reason itself as valid, a valid interpretation of reality!!

You should really watch Fr. Robert Spitzer SJ on EWTM on cable. He is the President of Gonzaga Univ. and he has a series on "God and Reason" (I think that is what it is called) It is full of scientific principle and arguments for the presence of God in our lives!! EWTN is very orthodox but has many fine speakers.

[Loki]

I've heard many arguments for a creator, and yet it still doesn't seem right to my mind. I probably will never be convinced on this points, rationally, but in my mind, this principle is disconnected from living my life and that theology that relates to that, and that's more important to me.

Also, i don't get EWTN.

[Protinus]

I've heard many arguments for a creator, and yet it still doesn't seem right to my mind. I probably will never be convinced on this points, rationally, but in my mind, this principle is disconnected from living my life and that theology that relates to that, and that's more important to me.

Also, i don't get EWTN.

I will work on assembling some of his courses...they are at least worth a look...can you pm me your e-mail?

[Protinus]

this is the Center for Faith and Reason that Fr. Spitzer heads up:

http://www.gonzagafaithreason.org/

This is his home page:

http://www.robertspitzer.org/default.htm

[Lel]

I am simply cataloging and reviewing the resources in this thread, but I want to thank you all for tackling this issue. So many times we just play the blame game and say others don't have enough faith. Maybe it's just a different (or errant) approach to the balance and interplay between faith and reason.

[Caedmon]

If there is something I have doubts about, I usually just put it to the back of my mind and concentrate on those aspects of faith which have nurtured and supported me in my relationship with God.
That's about what I do. If I don't understand something, I just shelve it. Most of those things don't apply to me anyway. The few things that do apply to me (common sins) are alleviated through circumstance, and I just do the best I can.

[Fantine]

Exactly. I have never really had much of a devotion to Mary.

Even after I became a parent myself. I knew enough parents of "perfect" children with "perfect" pictures in brag books and hyperbolic Christmas letters.

Not that Mary would have written hyperbolic Christmas letters......but when I felt the need to pray about my children it was because of their IMperfections.

The three things that influenced me most in having devotion to Mary were the vision of a friend the night before her mastectomy, the vision of my aunt who saw Mary in a tree in her backyard, and watching Mother Theresa say the Rosary while talking to a reporter and realizing it was kind of like a mantra, a white noise that clears your mind and opens it to heavenly possibilities.

But I think that's true of most people. They participate in the devotions that they find to be most helpful, and just kind of put the others in a back drawer.

I respect my friend's and my aunt's vision, but I think I would be more likely to see the Holy Spirit.