FK, any phenomenon we cannot explain by necessity involves rationalization. To rationalize is to "to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes..." so the humanists as well as non-humanists rationalize.
I am saying that they were trying to construct a reality which included God
That is true of all religions, including Christianity.
Their ambitions failed because man cannot reconcile with God if man is in control
We can't even explain the whole of Creation, let alone God. I think the humanists realized that they bit more than they can chew. In reality it makes no difference how much we know; it changes nothing. So what if we know there are 23 heaxtrillion stars in the visible universe? Really, how does that effect our life on earth?
Therefore, they gave up and went to a "leap of faith" philosophy because reason cannot be used to explain God if man is the boss.
I think not FK. They equate God with nature (typical New Age and Shinto beliefs), and none considers man above nature. Man is not capable of changing the Universe. Natural disasters remind us of that all the time.
You are right that this is the state of the world today, but I consider it a failure of what those Renaissance philosophers originally wanted
I agree. They started with an ambitious project to show that man can conquer everything and all, to deify man and humanize God. But, once they realized they failed, they rejected God and became atheists in the last act of defiance, arrogance and pride. It somehow becomes all God's "fault."
Sure, but they went way too far, thanks in part to the humanist philosophy that has been progressing ever since. Many decided that there is no such thing as demonic possession because the field of mental health was developed
Not just mental health, FK. Many "mental" diseases turned out to be of viral, bacterial, congenital and other explainable causes (etiologies); some can even be controlled or even cured. The association of diseases with demons in the Bible is the best example, in my opinion, that the words of the Bible are not God's but human. The revealed truth is God's, but it was packaged in the words and personalities and, most importantly, rationalizations of individual writers and their cocnept of the world, their cultral envornoment and society in general.
Man tended to replace God with science and that was a huge mistake. God gave science to man
I couldn't agree more, FK. Science can't compete with or replace God. Science can only reveal the ineffable nature of God, something that is truly beyond everything.
so there was no cause to shut God out because of it. Man came to believe that his intellect was enlightened and superior, so God no longer had a place based on reason
I disagree. God was no longer necessary for us to combat disease and to understand things like lightening, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc. and associate them with God sitting "above." Given that biblical-style miracles simply don't happen, along with de-demonization of diseases and other phenomena, God was simply dropped from being associated as the cause; man realized his own superstition that often make sup a significant part of any religion.
To include God at all, the only place left was to take a leap of faith
That is the prima facie first cause of all religions, FK, not just of humanists.
Man's self-declared autonomy inevitably led to God and reason not being able to co-exist together
God and reason can co-exist, given the necessary "leap of faith." As separate entities. Reason is powerless when it comes to God. That's why humanists failed.
I see that as a tragedy
Human tragedy started with Adam, FK.
Kosta:... in other words, it was the Church that taught that man is not autonomous. The Reformers did not discover that.
I think it's exactly the opposite. Reformers are criticized because we say that only God is autonomous
FK, straight from the Doctrine of the Orthodox Church
The Greek Fathers of the church always implied that the phrase found in the biblical story of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26), according to "the image and likeness of God," meant that man is not an autonomous being and that his ultimate nature is defined by his relation to God, his "prototype."
In paradise Adam and Eve were called to participate in God's life and to find in him the natural growth of their humanity "from glory to glory." To be "in God" is, therefore, the natural state of man.
This doctrine is particularly important in connection with the Fathers' view of human freedom. For theologians such as Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) and Maximus the Confessor (7th century) man is truly free only when he is in communion with God; otherwise he is only a slave to his body or to "the world," over which, originally and by God's command, he was destined to rule.
Sorry, FK, the Orthodox were way ahead of the Reformers in that regard. They didn't need to re-invent the wheel. :)
The Church, OTOH, recognizes man's autonomy to determine his own destiny
No, FK, that is not what we believe. From the Orthodox Catechism (please, please read the whole thing, not just the excerpt below):
Faith is the path on which an encounter takes place between us and God. It is God who takes the first step: He fully and unconditionally believes in us and gives us a sign, an awareness of His presence. We hear the mysterious call of God, and our first step towards an encounter with Him is a response to this call. God may call us openly or in secret, overtly or covertly. But it is difficult for us to believe in Him if we do not first heed this call
Apologies for including you in the above post. It was a copy-and-paste error on my part.
It sounds like it's just semantic then. I am learning the terms in a very specific way and wasn't sure if you were using them in kind or not. No big deal. In my study "rationalism" is man using reason but from the starting point of man. Therefore, God is left to the irrational. I oppose that and say that God CAN be understood using reason, i.e. the starting point for using reason is God and not man.
I think the humanists realized that they bit more than they can chew.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. They failed.
In reality it makes no difference how much we know; it changes nothing. So what if we know there are 23 heaxtrillion stars in the visible universe? Really, how does that effect our life on earth?
It certainly makes a huge difference in our world view and how we perceive our place in the universe vis-a-vis God. One way this affects our lives is how useful we are going to be to God while on earth. I think those who see God rooted in reason will on average make much better witnesses. Their testimonies will be stronger because they cater to reason. I don't know how a "leap-of-faither" would even approach a lost person to witness.
FK: "Therefore, they gave up and went to a "leap of faith" philosophy because reason cannot be used to explain God if man is the boss."
I think not FK. They equate God with nature (typical New Age and Shinto beliefs), and none considers man above nature. Man is not capable of changing the Universe. Natural disasters remind us of that all the time.
Yes, "nature" is critical to this discussion, but I think you are just mentioning another portion of my argument. In the philosophical progression, the original thought was that "grace was the base". Then, nature replaced grace, as you alluded to. Man's autonomy was already well established, BUT now it had to compete with the autonomy of nature. Of course this resulted in disaster, as the humanists refused to give up their freedom. God/nature was simply discarded or ignored. All of this was simply the precursor failure of men like Rousseau in the eighteenth century to the later failure of the first "leap-of-faithers", like Kierkegaard, in the nineteenth century.
The association of diseases with demons in the Bible is the best example, in my opinion, that the words of the Bible are not God's but human. The revealed truth is God's, but it was packaged in the words and personalities and, most importantly, rationalizations of individual writers and their concept of the world, their cultural environment and society in general.
If so, then the "revealed truth" would be unknowable by anyone without an authority to interpret it. Therefore, the truth would not really be revealed at all. It would only be revealed to some and not others. Such is one of our biggest differences. The Bible is full with error, and only the hierarchy can make it meaningful for us, etc.
Do you discount that there were real demons possessing people in the Bible? If so, then who was Jesus speaking to in the Gospel accounts?
FK: "... so there was no cause to shut God out because of it. Man came to believe that his intellect was enlightened and superior, so God no longer had a place based on reason."
I disagree. God was no longer necessary for us to combat disease and to understand things like lightening, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc. and associate them with God sitting "above." Given that biblical-style miracles simply don't happen, along with de-demonization of diseases and other phenomena, God was simply dropped from being associated as the cause; man realized his own superstition that often makes up a significant part of any religion.
I'm not sure how you are really disagreeing with me. When man decided that he could explain diseases and earthquakes, etc., then God was no longer needed for these, as you said. Consequently, man no longer reasoned that God was the cause for these phenomena, and man was wrong of course. What the humanists missed was that God was indeed still involved with all of this, and man just had a better understanding of His methods. Humanists didn't understand that God and reason STILL went together.
FK: "To include God at all, the only place left was to take a leap of faith."
That is the prima facie first cause of all religions, FK, not just of humanists.
Ridiculous! :) Reformers DO NOT rely on a leap of faith to believe in God. I would like to ask if any of our Roman Catholic friends would say their own belief is at core a leap of faith?
God and reason can co-exist, given the necessary "leap of faith." As separate entities. Reason is powerless when it comes to God. That's why humanists failed.
WHAT??? :) You cannot be telling me that a leap of faith is made based on reason. Therefore, there is NO coexistence between God and reason if you believe in it. Leap of faith isn't an answer to anything, it is a cop-out when one finally gives up that God and reason can be reconciled. When you say they are separate entities you admit that they do not go together. The humanist failure resulted in the FURTHER FAILURE of leap of faith. Leap of faith gives NO ANSWERS that are based on anything real. Leap of faith is FAILURE in and of itself.
Sorry, FK, the Orthodox were way ahead of the Reformers in that [man is not autonomous]. They didn't need to re-invent the wheel. :)
When you said that Reformers "did not discover it" I thought you meant that they didn't believe it. But I see now what you meant. :) However, I'm not sure the Orthodox Church is practicing what it preached. As the philosophers of the last 500 years have proved, leap of faith is only even POSSIBLE if man is autonomous.
FK: "The Church, OTOH, recognizes man's autonomy to determine his own destiny."
No, FK, that is not what we believe. From the Orthodox Catechism ...:
I know that you don't believe that man does it on his own. That isn't what autonomy means here. Autonomy means man makes the critical choice, the final choice, the choice that makes the difference between Heaven and hell. By this use of "autonomy" man determines his own destiny. We Reformers do not believe that man has this autonomy because it is God's autonomous decision as to who goes to Heaven and hell.