Reason + Revelation = Faith?
So I was perusing some corporate internet media today, as I tried to figure out just what it was I was going to do with the internet today, here at Portland's magisterial central public library, and came across this article, linked to from the front page of CNN.com. It continues to sadden me that shit like this gets published so readily, as if there is any kind of new message to be found in Collins' little blurb here (whose real (selfish) intent would seem to be to 1) sell more copies of Collins' book and 2) bring more viewers to CNN's upcoming special on what it means to be Christian). Every fucking Easter, man, this shit comes out. I don't get Newsweek, but is Jesus on the cover?
I'm not exactly sure how much I even want to rant against this particular argument, so I'm gonna stew about it for a little while and come back to it.
(okay... 10 minutes later...)
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
So Collins seems to be a proponent of the usual Dualism, wherein apparently, he has both a mind and a soul:
"...the revelation part [of Faith] requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind."
In this sloppy tract though, Collins' demonstrates the circularity of his argument:
"Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."
So, Faith (F) equals Reason (Rs) plus Revelation (Rl).
F = Rs + Rl
And Revelation, apparently, which involves the mental (spiritual) hearing of music, not just looking at notes, which, apparently is something of a leap of faith (as a musician alone, I'm am offended by the conception that there is that much of a leap between the notation and the music). So Revelation involves Faith.
Rl = Rl(F)
F = Rs + Rl(F) = Rs + (Rs + Rl(F)) = Rs + (Rs + (Rs + Rl(F))), etc.
A silly loop, at best. How this answers any of Collins' questions in his article, or bring solace and calm to issues of "life and death" is beyond me. It seems wrong, maybe, to consider Faith to be silly, when its as destructive as it is, but at the same time, a mostly nihilistic agnosticism urges me to laugh and laugh. Gallows humour, maybe, but still
what a virulent meme, that silly loop Faith.
I'm not exactly sure how much I even want to rant against this particular argument, so I'm gonna stew about it for a little while and come back to it.
(okay... 10 minutes later...)
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
So Collins seems to be a proponent of the usual Dualism, wherein apparently, he has both a mind and a soul:
"...the revelation part [of Faith] requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind."
In this sloppy tract though, Collins' demonstrates the circularity of his argument:
"Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."
So, Faith (F) equals Reason (Rs) plus Revelation (Rl).
F = Rs + Rl
And Revelation, apparently, which involves the mental (spiritual) hearing of music, not just looking at notes, which, apparently is something of a leap of faith (as a musician alone, I'm am offended by the conception that there is that much of a leap between the notation and the music). So Revelation involves Faith.
Rl = Rl(F)
F = Rs + Rl(F) = Rs + (Rs + Rl(F)) = Rs + (Rs + (Rs + Rl(F))), etc.
A silly loop, at best. How this answers any of Collins' questions in his article, or bring solace and calm to issues of "life and death" is beyond me. It seems wrong, maybe, to consider Faith to be silly, when its as destructive as it is, but at the same time, a mostly nihilistic agnosticism urges me to laugh and laugh. Gallows humour, maybe, but still
what a virulent meme, that silly loop Faith.
1 Comments:
Hey, nothing wrong with people selling books!
I think Collins writes really clearly here, and it sounds like his heart is in the right place -- I find it hard to be overly cynical about this.
That said, the problem with his discussion is that he conflates the ability to believe in God with the actual specific belief in a God with actual attributes. I think it's eminently clear that the ability to believe is not wiped away by science -- I agree with him on atheism being an impossible "universal negative." Yes, there's a hell of a lot we don't know, and there's room for God in the unknown zone. But it's unreasonable to use this condition to justify a specific belief in a God invested with attributes that there's no evidence for.
As he says, 40% of scientists call themselves believers. But they don't all believe the same thing, so most of them are wrong on the particulars. And that's not a small thing.
I call myself an atheist now, but I freely admit my willingness to believe in God, as soon as the evidence presents itself.
Incidentally, I don't think faith is as corrosive a force as you make it out to be. People tend to be shitheads and then justify their actions with whatever belief systems they've got access to; religious hatred is an effect of hatred, not an effect of religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home