Dec
01
Is religion rational? What John C. Wright says
Labels:
apologetics,
blogs,
catholic belief,
creation,
faith,
rational faith
I had the pleasure recently of re-reading science fiction author John C. Wright's conversion story, "Why I am not a Deist." Wright was an atheist who converted to Catholicism after a series of theophanies he describes as "totally humiliating" and "an embarrassment of evidence" of the truth of Christianity.
Christianity as rational
Certain atheists today have devolved into a kind of fundamentalist and evangelical atheism, notably the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the king clown of noxious atheist behavior, P.Z. Myers. Wright does not seem to have been that sort of atheist. His writing, both fiction and non-fiction, makes it clear he has always sought Truth over Ideology, objective reality over subjective belief.
The fundamentalist atheism movement prefers to charge religion with being irrational. (They confuse religionists, who frequently are irrational, with the religious ideals they strive toward but often fail to follow.) So it is refreshing to read Wright's story, in which he insists that Christianity is an utterly rational religion:
The Christian religion places an emphasis on Reason that other religions, with the exception of the Jewish, do not share, or not to the same degree. None of them mention LOGOS, the rational account, the word, issuing directly from the Father.Catholicism has a long tradition of rational thought. The Church honors no fewer than 33 thinkers with the title "Doctor of the Church." (Three of them, about 9%, are women, which is quite remarkable considering that in Western history, probably many fewer than 9% of educated persons were women.)
Christianity is not only a proponent of rational philosophy; it is a promoter of rational science. Indeed, Wright points out,
...Christendom invented science.... The Christian world-view is not only NOT incompatible with the scientific and logical one, they reinforce each other. You must imagine my befuddlement when I see science presented as somehow being the enemy of religion. Science is the enemy of Taoism or Buddhism, perhaps, but not the enemy of a religion that combines the rationalism of Athens with the mysticism of Jerusalem. We invented the University, for God's sake.
Taoism and Buddhism as irrational
My previous (and largely disastrous) attempts to study kung fu exposed me to Taoism and Buddhism, particularly Chan Buddhism, the Chinese ancestor of Zen Buddhism. Taoism is the philosophy behind the art of tai chi and emphasizes the use of chi (ki in Japanese), an utterly unscientific force. The belief in chi is a form of vitalism. It is inherently unscientific in the same sense that the theory of intelligent design is unscientific: it attempts to explain natural observations by appealing to a force that is supernatural.*
Both Taoism and Buddhism include elements that are at once impersonal and supernatural. The idea of a force both supernatural (that is, outside or above the laws of nature) and impersonal (that is, not a person or being nor arising from one) is irrational itself. Any force that exists independent of a person begs an explanation. If it acts on nature, it must be a law of nature — or (if one accepts the existence of supernatural beings) it must arise from a supernatural being.
*Of course, rational Christianity recognizes personal supernatural forces and the possibility of their acting on the natural. An appeal to the supernatural is not necessarily irrational, but it is unscientific, because by definition science can only be concerned with the natural world. Thus elements of intelligent design may be true, but it will always be an unscientific theory.
Logging you in...Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to...
Posts
Comments
Colin · 851 weeks ago
Christianity is very specific. To accept Catholicism as a whole, for example, you must accept the existence of a benevolent God, who exists simultaneously and timelessly both as the father-son-spirit trinity and as a single being. You have to accept that he sent his son-part down to Earth as a mortal human being, allowed humanity to destroy him, and believe that this act saved those who believe in Jesus as this God-son from eternal damnation. You have to believe that this action significantly modifies the behaviour of God, compared to the Old Testament representations of him. You have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, ascended to the heavens. You also have to believe that he's coming back.
That's not rational. The very fact that, as a being, you learn this information empirically through texts and testimony, most of which were written (edited and re-interpereted) or spoken long after the events are said to have occured, means that full belief in it, even if it were true, sounded true, or were very likely to be true, is irrational. The fact that so many people believe it does not make it any more rational -- that would be a fallacy.
I've admired philosophers such as Kierkegaard, who were religious, but happy to admit the lack of reason in religion. Religion isn't about seeking truth in the way that reason does. Sure, Christians have contributed to science, and I'm not discounting that. But the religion itself isn't about science or rationality. It's about faith.
The things Christianity teaches, in terms of moral values are good ideas, even though their proposed reasoning is flawed. There are rational ways to arrive at the same conclusions. I'm not trying to discount the value of religion -- only that its value is strengthened with the recognition that it is about faith against reason. It can be rational to have faith in something irrational.
I still have a great respect for religion, faith and religious belief, except when it is used as a reason for conflict. I'm not one of these "evangelical" atheists, and I'm not even sure I'm truly atheist. But I'm comfortable saying that Christianity is not rational. The choice to practice a religion, or have faith, may be rational, but the belief system itself is hardly based on reason. So I have to disagree with you: An appeal to the supernatural, at least in the case of Christianity, and perhaps especially Catholicism, IS necessarily irrational.
Sorry for the long comment. I'm fascinated by the philosophy of religion, as it's such a peculiar thing to me.
Eric Brown · 851 weeks ago
In fact, the difference between the various denominations ends up being about how one logically puts the pieces of the Faith. Whereas a Roman Catholic will accept that Rome has the sole authority to interpret the Scriptures, I as a Lutheran would contend that the meaning of the Scriptures as have been taught are clear to the Christian by the power of the Holy Spirit. And then, I'd go and want to beat other folks for mucking doctrine up with their stupidity or ego.
But in any case, there is an attempt to have logic and reason. Even with a mystery of the faith - like the Trinity, we can discuss logically why we must on the basis of Scriptural Revelation defend a doctrine that goes beyond our understanding. Even in our points that go beyond reason, we are striving to be reasonable.