I recently discovered that this is one subject upon which Sells and I agree, ink blot.

>>It is not that "all rational thought flies out the window" when someone believes in religion.<<

Religious belief and the application of rational, scientific principles are, most definitely, mutually exclusive. They can live and breathe in the same person, but exist in totally different mental realms.

Faith will never disprove science. Nor does science have any relevance in religious belief. They come from different starting points, operate in parallel, and never touch or cross.

>>Believing in the existence of God is not irrational.<<

The primary definition of 'irrational' is "marked by a lack of accord with reason", which covers it quite nicely. You imply that 'irrational', as the opposite of rational, is invariably pejorative.

So while I accept that there are many religious people who are not covered by the secondary, derived definition of "affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity", I maintain that all religious belief is inherently emotionally, as opposed to logically, constructed.

>>John Paul II wrote an encyclical in the 90s well worth reading called Fides et Ratio - Faith and Reason. He argued that both must be used together in both theological study and in the life of a Christian<<

"Well he would [say that], wouldn't he?" (Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963)

This is special pleading, given the history of the Catholic Church, with its expedient approach to science over the centuries.

It is also a somewhat dodgy explanation of what he actually said.

"Quod in postrema hac historiae philosophiae parte eminet, pertinet, igitur, ad contemplatam progredientem fidei a philosophica ratione distractionem." Fides et Ratio Caput IV

"This rapid survey of the history of philosophy, then, reveals a growing separation between faith and philosophical reason"

His words. Not mine.

>>It is a misunderstanding of many who do not have faith that all the tenets of faith are in the 'mystery' category i.e. there is no human way to understand them (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation etc).<<

Ok, I'm listening. How would you describe them?

In scientific terms, that is.

There are lots of problems with this article.

One is the assumption that science can objectively study, categorise and explain belief.

Another is the notion that all religious beleif is equal, the same. Even within particular religions beleifs can vary so widely that some contradict others.

It's rather arrogant to assume that religion, belief, faith - call it what you will - can be explained by evolutionary or biochemical paradigms. If scientists should have learnt anything it is that we don't know much and our paradigms, explanations, or data are shaped by that finite state and therefore subject to both change and inadequacy.

It is true of course that there are people who are delusive or psychologially unstable who "report" experiences that some call "religious", but this does not mean that all "religious" experiences are the same, or indeed that those who are delusive are experiencing anything religious at all.

It might be an idea that these scientists srutinise their own beliefs, presuppositions and assumptions, since these obviously play a part in both their observations of and explanations of "religious" behaviour or experiences.

Pericles

You have misread each of the points I made. I will take you through each one.

1- I never said that faith disproves science. In fact I said the opposite; faith builds on science. They are not mutually exclusive. Scientific research and knowledge is very important and takes us so far, to a point. Faith then takes us further. It requires consent of the will and a 'leap of faith' which is what many find very uneasy. But it is one way of explaining the many things we cannot access through scientific proof, such as love, evil, the problem of suffering in the world etc.

2- I agree with your definition of irrational, and would just add that I am talking about rational as in what is appropriate for a human, who is defined as a 'rational animal'. I stand by the negtative connotation I put on irrational. It is negative in the sense that it is not fitting for a human to act irrationally.

It is shortsighted to say that people with religious beliefs hold those beliefs because of some emotional reason, as opposed to a logical one. There are plenty of logical reasons for the existence of God. Even something as basic as Pascal's wager is a good example. A deeper approach would be Aquinas' 5 ways.

More to come.

3- Re John Paul II, you can't judge the Church with historical hindsight re science. The Church did a lot to progress scientific research in the world. It started universities, it led the way for many centuries. The limitations people in the Church made are understandable given the ultimate limits scientists in the Church had, especially when secular scientists started to progress research further. This was a natural progression, albeit with fallible people making mistakes such as the treatment of Gallileo.

4- Your Latin quote of Fides et Ratio is great, but you show a fleeting reading of the text as you have missed his point. If you read the paragraph before, or even the sentence after, you will understand that he is simply explaining how 'secular' philosophy has driven faith and reason apart. He doesn’t think this is a good thing. In fact he says: “some philosophers have abandoned the search for truth in itself and made their sole aim the attainment of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to know the truth and to seek the absolute.”

It is the absolute, that which is beyond the truth that we know, that is the subject of faith and rather than being in competing realms, faith builds on reason. Theology builds on philosophy.

5- I’m not sure of your final question, but if asking to describe the mysteries in scientific terms, that’s exactly what I am saying cannot be done – hence faith. If you are asking about other tenets of faith, there are plenty that are very agreeable even to people without faith, such as moral teaching, the historical fact of the existence of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection etc.

But I think you need to realise that there are plenty of ‘secular’ fields of study that are not empirical / scientific. They are based on induction, etc. You can’t dissect a brain or a heart and point to the capacity to love, label the conscience, and graph the memory.

Ya think, ink blot?

>>Pericles You have misread each of the points I made<<

I thought they were pretty clear.

>>I never said that faith disproves science. In fact I said the opposite; faith builds on science.<<

That is not "opposite".

"Faith proves science" would be "opposite". Is that what you meant to say?

But my point stands - there is no part of science upon which faith relies (is built on), nor any part of religion upon which science relies.

And this lacks any real meaning:

>>Faith... is one way of explaining the many things we cannot access through scientific proof, such as love, evil, the problem of suffering in the world<<

Because, as you know, there are many explanations that do not require religion as their starting-point.

>>There are plenty of logical reasons for the existence of God<<

"Logical", only in the sense that it is logical for a human to feel the need for an explanation of things that he cannot fully comprehend.

But to fill that void with "God" is illogical.

Profoundly illogical.

>>...albeit with fallible people making mistakes such as the treatment of Gallileo.<<

"Fallible people", ink blot?

It was the entire religious edifice that was fallible.

The need to protect core "beliefs" from the rationality of science leaves only one option: deny it.

In the case of Galileo, for several hundred years.

>>It is the absolute, that which is beyond the truth that we know, that is the subject of faith and rather than being in competing realms, faith builds on reason.<<

I don't consider them to be in "competing" realms either. As I said, they operate separately, with different objectives, and different rules.

But I still can't think of one instance of where "faith builds on reason".

Can you?

>>I’m not sure of your final question<<

You stated that to consider the tenets of your faith ("such as the Trinity, the Incarnation etc.") to be "mysteries", is a misunderstanding made by "many who do not have faith".

I simply asked, if it's a misunderstanding to call them "mysteries", how should we categorize them?

The author makes some good arguments for religion as a strategy for dealing with 'earthly woes' and as a natural evolutionary consequence of the presence of higher order thinking. There is definitely a strong psychological component which also ties nicely with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in that context.

It seems a natural progression to seeking answers to those questions for which there is no reasonable explanation. Why are we here? What happens when we die? What is the meaning of life?

The progression and advancements in Science is also a reflection of an enquiring mind but it differs somewhat in that it relies on evidence. Evidence that can be also be later disproved or verified, or adapted to suit later findings - hence an ever-inquring mind.

Religion does not pretend to be evidence based but faith based although there has been some later progression to accept much of the Bible as metaphor rather than taking the written word at primitive face value.

The nature of man and the nature of religion (belief in the supernatural) could be viewed as very much part of the human evolutionary process. It will probably remain with us for some time and there is no reason to believe it will not adapt and become more relevant to modern day thinking. Religion is starting to throw off its primitive shackles - many denominations have already demonstrated this metaphorical adaptation. Perhaps over time some religions will become less deity driven (with God more in the background) and morph into a way of life choice similar to buddhism.