Fideism: "God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it."

[Mark Quayle]

According to Dictionary.com
Fideism:
noun
exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

Wikipedia says:
Fideism (/ˈfiːdeɪ.ɪzəm, ˈfaɪdiː-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism".[1] Philosophers have identified a number of different forms of fideism.[2]....(and it continues)

So, is faith independent of reason? Does it depend totally on reason? Does it oppose reason?

Your thoughts?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

I've long believed that until science and reason are able to explain all the mysteries of the universe and the natural world, there will be room for faith and religion to fill in those gaps. With that being said, I'm a big believer that faith and reason can co-exist. The divine most certainly work in ways that are well within the laws of the natural world. With that said, I am opposed to natural theology. Just because nature and all its wonders appear majestic and intricate enough to be divinely created does not automatically mean that is the case.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've long believed that until science and reason are able to explain all the mysteries of the universe and the natural world, there will be room for faith and religion to fill in those gaps. With that being said, I'm a big believer that faith and reason can co-exist. The divine most certainly work in ways that are well within the laws of the natural world. With that said, I am opposed to natural theology. Just because nature and all its wonders appear majestic and intricate enough to be divinely created does not automatically mean that is the case.

I think I know what you mean (and I agree). But consider that if God made all this, then in a sense all of it is supernatural, or natural, if you wish to call it that. The natural universe, as observed, (and of course, whatever is not observed), is God's doing.

There is often confusion as to what is meant by 'science', and like it, 'reason'. Science is NOT the structure people have employed to reason about the universe, nor the logic of simple reason, nor, particularly, the people who study it. Consensus is of no relevance to fact. The Scientific Community is useful, but that is not what the definitions are referring to by "Science". Nor are philosophers what they are referring to by "reason".

But that isn't the whole debate on Fideism. Some trust reason, to a point, but when they get confused or dismayed, they quickly flee to, "The Bible Says" and they dig in their heels. Is that right to do? Or is there something else better to do?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've long believed that until science and reason are able to explain all the mysteries of the universe and the natural world, there will be room for faith and religion to fill in those gaps. With that being said, I'm a big believer that faith and reason can co-exist. The divine most certainly work in ways that are well within the laws of the natural world. With that said, I am opposed to natural theology. Just because nature and all its wonders appear majestic and intricate enough to be divinely created does not automatically mean that is the case.

You do, (rightly, of course), separate the scientific community and their results, from final fact, as in fact would most of them, if pressed. Most, if pressed, would admit no proof that God did not do all this, though they might be quick to point out that there's no proof he did do all this. But when you say faith and religion have room to fill in the gaps, there is where I see a problem --not in that faith does not fill in the gaps --of course it does-- but that faith also not only adds to what is known, but that it FITS everything that is 'known' (not at all meaning 'everything that is assumed').

 

[Sabertooth]

God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it.

My version?
"God said it, and

I believe it, and
that settles it
(if I am reading it correctly...

).​

[See 1 Corinthians 13:12.]

 

[Gregory Thompson]

According to Dictionary.com
Fideism:
noun
exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

Wikipedia says:
Fideism (/ˈfiːdeɪ.ɪzəm, ˈfaɪdiː-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism".[1] Philosophers have identified a number of different forms of fideism.[2]....(and it continues)

So, is faith independent of reason? Does it depend totally on reason? Does it oppose reason?

Your thoughts?

"But we have the mind of Christ"

The definition writer is unable to experience the spiritual kingdom of God so writes as if the reality of it does not exist. Thus independent of reason.

It seems independent of reason or foolishness to the greeks, yes.

 

[public hermit]

According to Dictionary.com
Fideism:
noun
exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

Wikipedia says:
Fideism (/ˈfiːdeɪ.ɪzəm, ˈfaɪdiː-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism".[1] Philosophers have identified a number of different forms of fideism.[2]....(and it continues)

So, is faith independent of reason? Does it depend totally on reason? Does it oppose reason?

Your thoughts?

There is a sense in which theism (faith in God) is reasonable, in terms of metaphysics. Aquinas was probably a highlight in this sense.

There is another sense in which Christian theism, in particular, is outside the strict domains of reason and science. This is due to the historical nature of the content of Christian proclamation. Even the scriptures can only give an abridged account of the historical reality.

But, once one has the content of theism and the proclamation in hand, it does fit whatever is deliverable via reason and science.

Faith is a worldview, i.e. beyond any kind of objective verification. It frames how we interpret content delivered by other means. The key is to keep the content of both (faith and reason/science) together in as authentic a way as possible. It takes effort, but if this is God's world, then it should be possible in a way that is sufficient.

 

[Tree of Life]

According to Dictionary.com
Fideism:
noun
exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

Wikipedia says:
Fideism (/ˈfiːdeɪ.ɪzəm, ˈfaɪdiː-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism".[1] Philosophers have identified a number of different forms of fideism.[2]....(and it continues)

So, is faith independent of reason? Does it depend totally on reason? Does it oppose reason?

Your thoughts?

Faith and reason are two different methods of knowledge. Some things we know by faith and other things by reason. Both methods give us knowledge and so they cannot contradict.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Faith and reason are two different methods of knowledge. Some things we know by faith and other things by reason. Both methods give us knowledge and so they cannot contradict.

(I see this kind of like I see a question brought up by a relative of mine (Arminian-leaning), who outright said something along the lines that some things are good, some are bad, and some are neutral. I disagree. All things are good, except what is bad. All things are of God, except sin.)

Science, (and philosophy, for that matter), is not just the study of God's creation and the way of things as he has set them forth. It is the study of the nature of God, from whom all things proceed (except sin). "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Those who study what they consider the natural world may not know they are learning about God, but they are learning about him nevertheless, even though they refuse to acknowledge him or "give him thanks".

 

[Kenny'sID]

So, is faith independent of reason? Does it depend totally on reason? Does it oppose reason?

Your thoughts?

I personally used reason first to get to the point that I trust God enough, and now that I do, Im comfortable with saying:

"God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it."

Besides, it makes life so much easier to simply say, okay, no argument. Much less stressful.

Also, thus far, I haven't found enough to disagree with that would make me want to question. So "reason" is part of it, but we may reason overall, instead of reasoning things out individually.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I personally used reason first to get to the point that I trust God enough, and now that I do, Im comfortable with saying:

"God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it."

Besides, it makes life so much easier to simply say, okay, no argument. Much less stressful.

Also, thus far, I haven't found enough to disagree with that would make me want to question. So "reason" is part of it, but we may reason overall, instead of reasoning things out individually.

There is a time to say,
"1 My heart is not proud, O LORD, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with its mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me." Psalm 131

But that does not excuse laziness, which I am so fond of.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is a sense in which theism (faith in God) is reasonable, in terms of metaphysics. Aquinas was probably a highlight in this sense.

There is another sense in which Christian theism, in particular, is outside the strict domains of reason and science. This is due to the historical nature of the content of Christian proclamation. Even the scriptures can only give an abridged account of the historical reality.

But, once one has the content of theism and the proclamation in hand, it does fit whatever is deliverable via reason and science.

Faith is a worldview, i.e. beyond any kind of objective verification. It frames how we interpret content delivered by other means. The key is to keep the content of both (faith and reason/science) together in as authentic a way as possible. It takes effort, but if this is God's world, then it should be possible in a way that is sufficient.

Agreed.

I quote this paragraph for further discussion: "Faith is a worldview, i.e. beyond any kind of objective verification. It frames how we interpret content delivered by other means. The key is to keep the content of both (faith and reason/science) together in as authentic a way as possible. It takes effort, but if this is God's world, then it should be possible in a way that is sufficient."

Interestingly, this worldview (God's faith), like any other, gives a foundation for objectivity. Not at all saying that this faith is not remarkable and unlike any other faith, but that, and as scripture says, it IS THE EVIDENCE. We can objectively reason from it just as scientists objectively reason from their worldview. This may seem to counter what I often say, that nobody is without bias, and I don't mean any believer is not also without their particular worldview, but God has the only truth (no, I'm not saying that any of our reasoning is without false presuppositions).

There is no end to the things that God teaches, but what constantly amazes me is how it lines up with Science, both soft and hard sciences. (No, I'm not talking about pseudoscience, nor the scientific community, nor consensus). Reason always works, sooner or later, and provides avenues to learn more about God. And intellectually honest philosophy so often just SCREAMS his name.

 

[Carl Emerson]

According to James 3:17...

The wisdom from above is reasonable.

"But the wisdom from above is indeed first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and of good fruits, impartial, sincere..."

 

[Paulomycin]

According to Dictionary.com
Wikipedia says:
Fideism (/ˈfiːdeɪ.ɪzəm, ˈfaɪdiː-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism".[1] Philosophers have identified a number of different forms of fideism.[2]....(and it continues)

So, is faith independent of reason? Does it depend totally on reason? Does it oppose reason?

Your thoughts?

This topic is a huge problem in-itself, because instead of defining faith in the sense of simple objective trust, it is rendered into a mystical "act" of some sort. Almost a pagan form of mysticism.

I always argue that the existence of God can be known in nature (Romans 1:18-20), but God cannot be known personally without Spiritual regeneration (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Man's reason (or induction) is wholly separate from God's reason (deduction). All truth is God's truth. If there is any reliable reason in God's creation, then it ultimately belongs to God. Both in General Revelation (nature) as well as Special Revelation (scripture).

 

[Mark Quayle]

This topic is a huge problem in-itself, because instead of defining faith in the sense of simple objective trust, it is rendered into a mystical "act" of some sort. Almost a pagan form of mysticism.

I always argue that the existence of God can be known in nature (Romans 1:18-20), but God cannot be known personally without Spiritual regeneration (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Man's reason (or induction) is wholly separate from God's reason (deduction). All truth is God's truth. If there is any reliable reason in God's creation, then it ultimately belongs to God. Both in General Revelation (nature) as well as Special Revelation (scripture).

Haha I wish I could talk as clearly as you do. I admire people who can compose without getting distracted.

In your first paragraph (this site only quotes one time --we will probably have to re-quote it as necessary), where you say it is rendered as a sort of mysticism --is not that rendering something we can bypass, to accept this faith as simply real, though spiritual? Or are we so entrenched in our temporal, 'natural' self-important worldview that it is impossible to rid ourselves of the obstructions such as love of superstition?

I love this sentence and its reiteration: "Man's reason (or induction) is wholly separate from God's reason (deduction). All truth is God's truth." Amen that! So the faith we have by the Holy Spirit is founded on absolute truth, but we vacillate even yet.

 

[Paulomycin]

Man's reason (or induction) is wholly separate from God's reason (deduction).

Taking this thought further: If this is true, then fallen man rejects all of God's reason, or only accepts it up to a certain point (where they then reject it).

This is where man is fundamentally "broken" in nature. This also reflects sin in the real world.

For example, a lie is a deliberate rejection, twisting, or violation of deductive truth. When a person becomes regenerate, then all of God's truth in nature becomes crystal clear. The regenerate man becomes a new creation, thus "fully awake" in God's creation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I personally used reason first to get to the point that I trust God enough, and now that I do, Im comfortable with saying:

"God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it."

Besides, it makes life so much easier to simply say, okay, no argument. Much less stressful.

Also, thus far, I haven't found enough to disagree with that would make me want to question. So "reason" is part of it, but we may reason overall, instead of reasoning things out individually.

There is also this: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Proverbs 25:2

 

[Mark Quayle]

Taking this thought further: If this is true, then fallen man rejects all of God's reason, or only accepts it up to a certain point (where they then reject it).

This is where man is fundamentally "broken" in nature. This also reflects sin in the real world.

For example, a lie is a deliberate rejection, twisting, or violation of deductive truth. When a person becomes regenerate, then all of God's truth in nature becomes crystal clear. The regenerate man becomes a new creation, thus "fully awake" in God's creation.

You say, "The regenerate man becomes a new creation, thus "fully awake" in God's creation." Well, yes, and, regretfully, no, We regenerate still have that nasty "old man" to keep putting to death. We love ourselves, and keep finding any reason we can to declare our independence. Thank God for his patience and forbearance, and for his crystal clear un-moving truth!

To my mind, at least this brings up a tangential, and almost funny, fact. I say his truth is unmoving, and it is. But all our lives he bring up different facets, different was to see the truth. I can't begin to remember how many times I have thought, "Now I see", and later realized I hardly saw at all. His truth didn't move, but I couldn't see it well enough to say, "There it is!"

But I digress. As for the subject of the thread, I notice that those who cling desperately to Scriptures for an anchor sometimes don't realize how much they DO reason. When they think they don't, it is usually in the face of some subject they simply don't know how to deal with. Their attitude is to remove themselves from the debate, but I think it is often more for embarrassment's sake than for a distrust of reason. I'm trying to learn to say, "I don't know yet", than to back away, or get mad.

I just wish we could get past the definitions a little more quickly, haha. But that is the skill of a great debater.

 

[Paulomycin]

Haha I wish I could talk as clearly as you do. I admire people who can compose without getting distracted.

I just "regurgitate it "stream-of-consciousness" style, and then proofread/edit afterwards.

In your first paragraph (this site only quotes one time --we will probably have to re-quote it as necessary), where you say it is rendered as a sort of mysticism --is not that rendering something we can bypass, to accept this faith as simply real, though spiritual? Or are we so entrenched in our temporal, 'natural' self-important worldview that it is impossible to rid ourselves of the obstructions such as love of superstition?

Wow. I never thought of it that way before. I like it.

But I was coming from it as an ex-atheist. Before my conversion, no one took the time to define the word for me. Everytime I heard "faith," it was just some kind of superstitious abracadabra. Even worse, those who were trying to witness to me appealed to a purely subjective definition of the term, which made me instantly react, "Oh, so more abracadabra BS."

The best definition I heard was from one of my first pastors. He said that faith wasn't subjective, but OBJECTIVE. To demonstrate, he walked away from the pulpit and went over to the piano bench.

He said, "I admit I'm a bit overweight, but I still have faith that piano bench will hold me up." Then he stood there next to it with a long awkward silence, "What's missing?"

Congregation: "YOU'RE HAVEN'T SAT ON THE BENCH YET! LOL!"

"That's right!!!" the pastor replied. "Only until after you've rested your entire weight upon it are you exercising faith in the object. That's the way it is with faith in Christ."

I'll never forget that.

Later on, I learned that there's a real history behind this argument. The definition of the word "faith" itself became 2 definitions very quickly in the past 200 years. That was because simple "objective trust" took a backseat to Kierkegaard's mystical "Leap of Faith." Or a leap of faith into the absurd. Which was absolutely devastating to Christian philosophy. It made us all into techno-barbarians. IMO, we've been living in a dark ages of theology. Most of us are just pagans wearing crosses, atm.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

According to James 3:17...

The wisdom from above is reasonable.

"But the wisdom from above is indeed first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and of good fruits, impartial, sincere..."

I got a lift in my spirit just from reading that quote. Thank you.