Dissecting Books to Find the Logic of Faith
(originally written 8/8/06)
Hey. I just sat down at the M. I'm ready to do a little research into the justification or defense of faith. With me are three books: An Essay on Morals, by Phylip Wylie; The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel; and The Reconstruction of Belief, by Charles Gore-the inspiration for the title of this blog. I intend to flip randomly through some pages in the hope of coming upon some content which will reveal the logic that justifies faith, or supports the proposition that God exists. I'll list it as I find it:
1) The universe cannot be viewed and understood without admitting to the presence of a great mind.
2) The mind, belonging to the creator, is manifest in the universe.
3) The highest form of mind we know of directly is our own, thus it is reasonable to believe that the creator is like us, with a distinct personality.
4) It is more likely than not that the creator chose to reveal himself to his creation throught the prophets and scripture.
I know my mission here was to simply list the logic/argument behind the thinking of believers, but I just have to interrupt and state for the record that I have so many problems with the preceeding statements. Each one asserts its truth, yet each one is far from that-all are neither well-supported nor self-evident. Ok, back to the job at hand...
5) The new testament's historical accuracy provides important corroboration, establishing reliability
6) "There are plenty of reasons to believe that the gospels are reliable"
**" Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaological discoveries (Strobel 45)" (interesting quote)
7) The whole universe has a rational order
8) "..see a purpose of beauty in the world prior in time to man's appearance (Gore, 147)"
9) "...see a purpose of fellowship and love becoming dominant in the animal world before man (Gore, 147" Thus, "...his conscious purpose is behind all"
[8/15, another day, another coffee shop]
Again, I'm seeking assertions, propositions, the basic assumptions of those who believe in God and and an after life.
The author of Faith Security and Risk, The Dynamics of Spiritual Growth, Richard W. Kropf, says:
"It is this something that is greater than ourselves which alone can fully call forth our capacity to become fully what we are capable of (16)" {Here, the author refers to Frankl's explanation of our purpose or motive for living and finding fulfillment. Kropf, in this section of the book is comparing/contrasting Frankl's meaning to fulfillment to Freud's pleasure motive and Adler's power/prestige motive.}
The statement comes after a slow, methodical approach to the issue of God's existence, but in actuality, it is an amazing leap forward in its assumption. I include this quote because it represents the genesis of a grand assumption. In it, we find the author beginning to speak of a belief in something... The quote assumes the existence of a higher power; it assumes this higher power's connection to us, it assumes it has a specific purpose for us, and it accepts our position of dependence upon it alone for that which we seek. Each assumption in and of itself is a grand one. Together they demonstrate that the author is a really, really big ass. That's right, I said it! Each assumption should have been explained and justified; however, in one sentence, the author seems to accept that there is nothing unusual, and little more to be said, about the foundation of his entire book. Like all religions, the author has a straw man carry the weight of the world. Moving on...
According to Frankl, it is the pneuma, or "spirit", which makes us fully human.
"St Paul tells us that it is our pneuma, the human spirit, that reaches out to God's pneuma, the Holy Spirit, and which alone can bring us to our full destiny as 'children of God' (see Rom 8:16")"
The author, Kropf, goes on to explain Frankl's decidedly Christian definition of being. There are 3 dimensions of human existence; physical, mental, and spiritual. We are only partially complete on the spiritual level, still growing. The reality in which we live exists primarily as a result of our efforts/actions to evolve spiritually. The author seems to believe that one's lack of satisfaction/happiness in life is due to our need to connect with God and evolve spiritually.
And so we're sucked into a study of one man's ideas regarding the nature of being, having skipped over any evidence or support for notion that God exists. The author comes as close as he ever does to addressing the specific issue of God's existence-he recognizes that we want to know the meaning of our lives, that we hope for fulfillment; yet he immediately surrenders his reason to Frankl's mere observation that faith is a "trust in ultimate meaning" when he seems to confuse this definition of faith with THE ANSWER, or the proof, while it remains clear to me that it is a definition and not an answer-especially not an answer supported by reason. Frankl reads that faith is "a trust in ultimate meaning" and hears "God exists". Yeah, its as strange as it sounds. Alas, another author jumps the gun.
Its crazy. Kropf devotes most of the book to defining and differentiating types of faith in order to get to the heart of it. He defines it in so many positive ways, using words and phrases like "confidence", "grace", "charisma", "a loving trust", "confident security of faith", "trust in ultimate meaning", "faith hope and love", "conviction", "committment", "proof", "allegiance", "fidelity"... The author doesn't seem to think twice about a missing element in his definition of faith, without which the word would loose its true meaning. Perhaps its because "a lack of evidence" or "blind trust" are a somewhat negative phrases, and the author has an undeniable bias in favor of faith--not suprisingly, of course.
Faith Security and Risk is a very Catholic book, written by a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America. His passing treatment of the reasonable justification of faith is irresponsible. The tactics he uses to quickly introduce the Grand Assumptions and then mire the reader in intellectual minutia regarding the definition and nuances of faith are nothing short of deception and trickery. I'm not sure if I'm justified in feeling this way (maybe its the coffee), but these facts are making my blood boil.
Moving on to another book. I think I'll continue reading The Reconstruction of Disbelief as I'm committed to finishing that monster. Thanks to it, I'm beginning to have some understanding of the Catholic Church.
Hey. I just sat down at the M. I'm ready to do a little research into the justification or defense of faith. With me are three books: An Essay on Morals, by Phylip Wylie; The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel; and The Reconstruction of Belief, by Charles Gore-the inspiration for the title of this blog. I intend to flip randomly through some pages in the hope of coming upon some content which will reveal the logic that justifies faith, or supports the proposition that God exists. I'll list it as I find it:
1) The universe cannot be viewed and understood without admitting to the presence of a great mind.
2) The mind, belonging to the creator, is manifest in the universe.
3) The highest form of mind we know of directly is our own, thus it is reasonable to believe that the creator is like us, with a distinct personality.
4) It is more likely than not that the creator chose to reveal himself to his creation throught the prophets and scripture.
I know my mission here was to simply list the logic/argument behind the thinking of believers, but I just have to interrupt and state for the record that I have so many problems with the preceeding statements. Each one asserts its truth, yet each one is far from that-all are neither well-supported nor self-evident. Ok, back to the job at hand...
5) The new testament's historical accuracy provides important corroboration, establishing reliability
6) "There are plenty of reasons to believe that the gospels are reliable"
**" Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaological discoveries (Strobel 45)" (interesting quote)
7) The whole universe has a rational order
8) "..see a purpose of beauty in the world prior in time to man's appearance (Gore, 147)"
9) "...see a purpose of fellowship and love becoming dominant in the animal world before man (Gore, 147" Thus, "...his conscious purpose is behind all"
[8/15, another day, another coffee shop]
Again, I'm seeking assertions, propositions, the basic assumptions of those who believe in God and and an after life.
The author of Faith Security and Risk, The Dynamics of Spiritual Growth, Richard W. Kropf, says:
"It is this something that is greater than ourselves which alone can fully call forth our capacity to become fully what we are capable of (16)" {Here, the author refers to Frankl's explanation of our purpose or motive for living and finding fulfillment. Kropf, in this section of the book is comparing/contrasting Frankl's meaning to fulfillment to Freud's pleasure motive and Adler's power/prestige motive.}
The statement comes after a slow, methodical approach to the issue of God's existence, but in actuality, it is an amazing leap forward in its assumption. I include this quote because it represents the genesis of a grand assumption. In it, we find the author beginning to speak of a belief in something... The quote assumes the existence of a higher power; it assumes this higher power's connection to us, it assumes it has a specific purpose for us, and it accepts our position of dependence upon it alone for that which we seek. Each assumption in and of itself is a grand one. Together they demonstrate that the author is a really, really big ass. That's right, I said it! Each assumption should have been explained and justified; however, in one sentence, the author seems to accept that there is nothing unusual, and little more to be said, about the foundation of his entire book. Like all religions, the author has a straw man carry the weight of the world. Moving on...
According to Frankl, it is the pneuma, or "spirit", which makes us fully human.
"St Paul tells us that it is our pneuma, the human spirit, that reaches out to God's pneuma, the Holy Spirit, and which alone can bring us to our full destiny as 'children of God' (see Rom 8:16")"
The author, Kropf, goes on to explain Frankl's decidedly Christian definition of being. There are 3 dimensions of human existence; physical, mental, and spiritual. We are only partially complete on the spiritual level, still growing. The reality in which we live exists primarily as a result of our efforts/actions to evolve spiritually. The author seems to believe that one's lack of satisfaction/happiness in life is due to our need to connect with God and evolve spiritually.
And so we're sucked into a study of one man's ideas regarding the nature of being, having skipped over any evidence or support for notion that God exists. The author comes as close as he ever does to addressing the specific issue of God's existence-he recognizes that we want to know the meaning of our lives, that we hope for fulfillment; yet he immediately surrenders his reason to Frankl's mere observation that faith is a "trust in ultimate meaning" when he seems to confuse this definition of faith with THE ANSWER, or the proof, while it remains clear to me that it is a definition and not an answer-especially not an answer supported by reason. Frankl reads that faith is "a trust in ultimate meaning" and hears "God exists". Yeah, its as strange as it sounds. Alas, another author jumps the gun.
Its crazy. Kropf devotes most of the book to defining and differentiating types of faith in order to get to the heart of it. He defines it in so many positive ways, using words and phrases like "confidence", "grace", "charisma", "a loving trust", "confident security of faith", "trust in ultimate meaning", "faith hope and love", "conviction", "committment", "proof", "allegiance", "fidelity"... The author doesn't seem to think twice about a missing element in his definition of faith, without which the word would loose its true meaning. Perhaps its because "a lack of evidence" or "blind trust" are a somewhat negative phrases, and the author has an undeniable bias in favor of faith--not suprisingly, of course.
Faith Security and Risk is a very Catholic book, written by a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America. His passing treatment of the reasonable justification of faith is irresponsible. The tactics he uses to quickly introduce the Grand Assumptions and then mire the reader in intellectual minutia regarding the definition and nuances of faith are nothing short of deception and trickery. I'm not sure if I'm justified in feeling this way (maybe its the coffee), but these facts are making my blood boil.
Moving on to another book. I think I'll continue reading The Reconstruction of Disbelief as I'm committed to finishing that monster. Thanks to it, I'm beginning to have some understanding of the Catholic Church.
posted by Josh at
2:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home