{"id":4248,"date":"2018-09-10T16:55:33","date_gmt":"2018-09-10T16:55:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/09\/10\/could-all-paths-be-dead-ends\/"},"modified":"2018-09-10T16:55:33","modified_gmt":"2018-09-10T16:55:33","slug":"could-all-paths-be-dead-ends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/09\/10\/could-all-paths-be-dead-ends\/","title":{"rendered":"Could All Paths be Dead Ends?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Reason in the end must confess its own infirmity.  It cannot deliver on its promises. The truth-seeker must explore other avenues.  Religion is one, mysticism is another. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Vito Caiati responds:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

My concern is as follows: While I agree that \u201creason in the end must confess its own infirmity,\u201d I am troubled by the possibility that religion and mysticism terminate, for many, in their own dead ends. Regarding religious belief, too many sincere seekers, perhaps those not blessed with a religious disposition, the apparent gift of a minority of humanity, end up concluding, to quote Pascal, that  \u201c[J<\/em>]e suis fait d'une telle sorte que je ne puis croire<\/em>\u201d (\u201cI am so made that I cannot believe\u201d; Pens\u00e9es<\/em> Le livre de Poche, 1991, 464). I realize that there are a variety of theological responses to this declaration, including the debilitating effects of original sin on the human soul and mind, but these attempts merely explain away or rationalize what is for many a painful reality. As for mysticism, its truths, real or supposed, are enjoyed, as you know, by a very tiny fraction of humanity, East and West. <\/span><\/p>\n

Given these states of affairs, is it not possible that many (most?) of us are trapped in our ignorance of higher things? That none of the three ways\u2014reason, religion, or mysticism\u2014is a viable alternative? That our fate is tragic and miserable?<\/span><\/p>\n

I hope that the answer to each of these questions is a negative one, for I continue to search for a way forward.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In The Infirmity of Reason versus the Certitude of Faith<\/a>, I list the following options, omitting mysticism:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A. Rationalism:<\/em> Put your trust in reason to deliver truths about ultimates and ignore the considerations of Sextus Empiricus, Nagarjuna, Bayle, Kant, and a host of others that point to the infirmity of reason.<\/span><\/p>\n

B. Fideism: <\/em>Put your trust in blind faith. Submit, obey, enslave your reason to what purports to be revealed truth while ignoring the fact that what counts as revealed truth varies from religion to religion, and within a religion from sect to sect.<\/span><\/p>\n

C. Skepticism:<\/em> Suspend belief on all issues that transcend the mundane if not all beliefs, period. Don't trouble your head over whether God is or is not tri-personal. Stick to what appears. And don't say, 'The tea is<\/em> sweet'; say, 'The tea appears <\/em>sweet.' (If you say that the tea is<\/em> sweet, you invite contradiction by an irascible table-mate.)<\/span><\/p>\n

D. Reasoned Faith:<\/em> Avoiding each of the foregoing options, one formulates one's beliefs carefully and holds them tentatively. One does not abandon them lightly, but neither does one fail to revisit and revise them. Doxastic examination is ongoing at least for the length of one's tenure here below. One exploits the fruitful tension of Athens and Jerusalem<\/a>, philosophy and religion, reason and faith, playing them off against each other and using each to chasten the other.<\/span><\/p>\n

I recommend (D). Or are there other options?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Dr. Mark Whitten<\/a> wrote to remind me that<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

John Bishop (University of Auckland) has a book , Believing by Faith: An Essay in the Epistemology and Ethics of Religious Faith<\/a> (OUP, 2007) which is perhaps the best book that I have read on the subject.  He argues for what he calls a \u2018supra-evidential fideism\u2019 in which  one is \u2018morally entitled\u2019 to \u201ctake as true in one\u2019s practical and theoretical deliberations\u201d a claim that lacks  evidence sufficient for  epistemically-justified acceptance or rejection.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is a developed Jamesian\u2019 approach to the right to believe. He does not allow for beliefs that go contrary to the weight of evidence, thus he rejects Wittgensteinian fideism. One may believe beyond the evidence, but not against the evidence. He holds that one must always respect the canons of rational inquiry and not dismiss them, even in matters of faith. Yet, by the very nature of the faith-issue, they can be transcended with moral entitlement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nor does he allow for \u2018induced willings-to believe.\u2019  He holds that one who already has an inclination \/ disposition to believe is morally entitled to do so if the issue is important, forced, and by the nature of the issue cannot be decided upon the basis of \u2018rationalist empiricist\u2019 evidential practice.I came across  the book on a list of important books in philosophy of religion on Prosblogion.<\/span><\/p>\n

I think that it is a type of fideism that combines your categories B and D \u2013 fideism and reasoned faith.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here<\/a> is the Introduction to Bishop's book.<\/span><\/p>\n

What should I say to Dr. Caiati?<\/span><\/p>\n

It might all be a big bloody joke in the end. But we don't know that it is, and there are indications that it is not.  Among the indications and intimations are the deliverances of conscience, and a wide range of paranormal, religious, and mystical experiences. Add to that the explanatory failures of naturalism and the dozens and dozens of arguments that conduct us from undeniable features of this world (its existence, order, beauty, causal structure, contingency, intelligibility, etc.) to a Source beyond it.  None of these arguments is rationally compelling. Cumulatively, they make a strong case, but still not a compelling one. No substantive thesis bearing upon our ultimate concerns can be proven, not even the thesis I have just enunciated. There is simply no rest here below. We are in statu viae<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

We are on the road, and any rest is temporary. Up ahead death looms, undeniable and ineluctable. That<\/em> we will die is certain. But what<\/em> death is is uncertain and unknown. We don't know what death is because we don't know what we are or who we are. If you think you know, then you are fooling yourself. You are either whistling in the dark or slumbering in some dogmatism, whether scientistic or religious.  That<\/em> I am is certain; what<\/em> I am highly uncertain.  That<\/em> I sense a difference between right and wrong is certain; what<\/em> this sense reveals, if anything, is highly uncertain.<\/span><\/p>\n

The human condition is a predicament, and this predicament can be described as a chiaroscuro, a blend of light and dark, clarity and obscurity. I am tempted to quote the great Pascal, "There is light enough for those who want to see, and darkness enough for those who are contrary-minded." But that is not quite what I want to say.  My thought is that there is light enough to justify faith and hope, and darkness enough to justify the opposite.<\/span><\/p>\n

But we live better by faith and hope and worse by unbelief and despair.  We resolve the matter pragmatically, by deciding and doing. Life as I  see it is a venture and an adventure with no assured outcome. Life is lived well when it is lived as a quest for the Absolute along the various routes of philosophy, religion, mysticism, and morality. <\/span><\/p>\n

All genuine religion involves a quest since God must remain largely unknown, and this by his very nature. He must remain latens Deitas<\/em> in Aquinas' phrase:<\/span><\/p>\n

Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, Qu\u00e6 sub his figuris vere latitas;
Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit, Quia te contemplans totum deficit.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore, Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more, See, Lord, at Thy service low lies here a heart Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.<\/span><\/p>\n

(tr. Gerard Manley Hopkins.)<\/span><\/p>\n

But as religion becomes established in the world in the form of churches, sects, and denominations with worldly interests, it becomes less  of a quest and more of a worldly hustle. Dogmatics displaces inquiry, and fund-raising faith. The once alive becomes ossified.  All human institutions are corruptible, and are eventually corrupted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mature religion must be more quest than conclusions. It is vastly more a seeking than a finding. More a cleansing of windows and a polishing  of mirrors than a glimpsing. And certainly more a glimpsing than a comfortable resting upon dogmas. When philosophy and religion and mysticism and science are viewed as quests they complement one another. And this despite the tensions among Athens, Jerusalem, Benares, and Alexandria.<\/span><\/p>\n

The critic of religion wants to pin it down, reducing it to dogmatic contents, so as to attack it where it is weakest. Paradoxically, the atheist 'knows' more about God than the sophisticated theist — he knows so much that he knows no such thing could exist. He 'knows' the divine nature and knows that it is incompatible with the existence of evil — to mention one line of attack.  What he 'knows,' of course, is only the concept he himself has fabricated and projected.  Aquinas, by contrast, held that the existence of God is far better known than God's nature — which remains shrouded in a cloud of unknowing.<\/span><\/p>\n

The (immature) religionist also wants religion pinned down and dogmatically spelled out for purposes of self-definition, doxastic security, other-exclusion, worldly promotion, and political leverage. This is a reason why reformers like Jesus are met with a cold shoulder — or worse.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I wrote: Reason in the end must confess its own infirmity.  It cannot deliver on its promises. The truth-seeker must explore other avenues.  Religion is one, mysticism is another.  Vito Caiati responds: My concern is as follows: While I agree that \u201creason in the end must confess its own infirmity,\u201d I am troubled by the … Continue reading “Could All Paths be Dead Ends?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[273,39,128,139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-absolute","category-human-predicament","category-reason-and-rationality","category-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}