Replies

Isn't the classical distinction that between reason and revelation? It takes revelation (a gift, a grace — as is the inclination to believe the revelation) to know God, but reason can provide an amazing amount of truth ABOUT God.

It took divine revelation to motivate St. Anselm of Cantebury's fides quarens intellectum, faith's quest or search for its reason. This quest is "God-pulled," if I might put it that way; it begins in faith. As Anselm put it,

"Speak to my desirous soul what you are, other than what it has seen, that it may clearly see what it desires."

Reason itself cannot supply the divine leading to Truth for a soul attuned to the love of God and His Truth, by the grace of God. But I believe, dear brother in Christ, that you are right to say that "reason can provide an amazing amount of truth ABOUT God." "ABOUT" is the operative word here.

But first one must be led to seek God; then reason really has something to do (other than spin its wheels in useless human fatuities). Bearing in mind God does not ever reduce to the rational categories of the human mind. He is "beyond" all such categories; He cannot be "reduced" to them.

What philosophy can never do is make human reason (i.e., man) the measure of God.

If we are to speak of God at all, we begin in faith, not in reason. Reason (and philosophy) cannot penetrate to what God IS; but as you note, dear Mad Dawg, it (they) can provide insights ABOUT God, in human language that can be shared with others.

I see no danger from reason or philosophy rooted in fides — faith, trust in God. For His Logos is the very root of reason itself.

Just some thoughts, FWIW.

Thank you oh so much, dear brother, for your excellent observations!

I was taught, FWIW, to distinguish between fedes qua creditur and fides quae creditur (in a Protestant seminary I hasten to add for those who came in late) - fides qua = the faith BY which; fides quae = the faith which - creditur =(it) is believed.

The old joke, related, is: "Do you believe in infant baptism?" "Believe in it? Heck, I've SEEN it!"

Even the deservedly disreputable Tillich is okay on this. There are the propositions to which we give assent - fides quae. Then there is that hard to nail down openness to Being (or to the flying spaghetti monster) which leads to a confidence in a number of things.

Among which might be a confidence that things will make sense even if we don't understand them; that good and evil matter, as do truth and falsehood.

This is one reason there is frequently more hope for an atheist than an agnostic. At least the atheist cares enough about the truth, about knowing it and stating it, that he takes a stand.

ANYway ... when I talked about "reason and revelation" I think I was kind of implying fides qua - except I approached explicitness when I talked about the inclination to believe what is revealed. BUt I was more directly talking about fides quae, the propositions revealed, the 'articles', whatever.

so, naturally, I asked, "What if the lens doesn't work properly unless it is stapled to the eye?" I've received no answer, so far.

I meant, of course, that you can't really look at things through the Christian lens unless you have a heart commitment to Christ. Christianity can't be "tried on" like a dress, or taken out for a test drive.

Which is to say that whether love precedes, follows, or accompanies knowledge, of the "things of YHWH" we can reasonably say that they cannot be understood (or not much) unless they are loved, unless there is 'troth' to go with the 'truth'
__ End of aside.

SO I agree with Anselm that without grace, without some divine leading, Reason will get nowhere much beyond how to make the car work.

I would check and shy a little bit, in that I think Socrates really loved the truth and justice, even though he only had a very generic glimpse of it/them.

But I would hasten to say that that love was a grace from God.

As to the reasonableness of God and the categories of the human mind. In one way, of course, you are right. God is incomprehensible. Somebody said it's like lighting a torch to see the sun.

But I think reason rightly used and guided by grace can do some pretty amazing stuff.

I mean I think the Nicene understanding of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian definition are wonderful. I also think they are incomprehensible. This may be heresy, but for me the way I "work" them is as guidelines. I mean if something I am thinking leads to a contradiction of those 'definitions' I know it's wrong. I can discern the outline of the mystery and some of its mysterious implications, while the thing itself is forever beyond my grasp.

God send that I am never beyond its grasp, but am always held firmly to His Heart.

This is not meant as a correction, even less a contradiction. It is adumbration only.