1.1 Introduction
Fideism is the name
given to that school of thought, to which Tertullian himself is frequently said
to have subscribed, which answers that faith is in some sense independent of,
if not outright adversarial toward, reason. The physical and the metaphysical[1] knowledge commonly obtain by
two primary sources. First, known as experience (sense perception) and second,
known as reason, and then knowledge also obtain by some secondary
resources, like, memory, testimony, and revelation etc. Obtaining the
metaphysical knowledge by the sense perception (empirical) and reason
(rational) is denied by fideists (fideist is one who argues for fideism). Because they argue that the matters of
faith and religious belief are not supported by reason. Religion is a matter of
faith and cannot be argued by reason. One must simply believe. Faith, not
reason, is what God requires (Heb. 11:6). Fideists are skeptical with regard to
the nature of evidence as applied to belief. They believe no evidence or
argument applies to belief in God. God is not reached by reason, but only by
faith. Therefore, theologians
and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and
reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious
beliefs. The focal point of the course paper will be Kierkegaard’s fideism
(Soren Kierkegaard is one of the prominent figure in the philosophy, who
strongly argued for the fideism) along with others philosophers and their descriptions
on fideism.
1.2 Definitions
Fideism (from the Latin "fides" or
"faith") is the view that religious belief depends on faith or
revelation, rather than reason, intellect or natural theology.
According to Merriam Webster.com/Dictionary:
Fideism is a reliance on faith
rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth.
According to Absurdism:
Fideism is a philosophy
based on the belief that the universe is irrational and meaningless and that
the search for order brings the individual into conflict with the universe.
According to Wikipedia: Fideism 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.
1.3 History of Fideism
The term “fideism”
appears to have entered the philosophical lexicon by way of theology in the
late nineteenth century. It was originally used in reference to a movement
within Roman Catholic thought, also known as traditionalism, which
emphasized, over against rationalism, the role of tradition as the medium by
means of which divine revelation is communicated, and which was sometimes
conjoined with a conservative social and political agenda. Although of late
modern vintage, the term “fideism” has since been applied retrospectively to
thinkers at least as far back as the second century C.E. Tertullian is
frequently cited in this connection as a textbook fideist. Developing a theme
articulated by Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, Tertullian insisted
that the truth of Christianity could be disclosed only by revelation, and that
it must necessarily remain opaque to unregenerate philosophical reason. In a,
Tertullian quoted passage he maintains (against Marcion) that the “biblical
narrative of Christ's death and resurrection is by all means to be believed,
because it is absurd.”[2] However, the conception of
Tertullian as anti-rational is not supported by contemporary scholarship.
1.4 Sources of Knowledge
1.4.1 Empiricism
Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is
sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially
sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only
knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (based on experience). Most
empiricists also discount the notion of innate ideas or innatism (the idea that
the mind is born with ideas or knowledge and is not a "blank slate"
at birth).[3]
In order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these
direct observations, induction or inductive reasoning (making generalizations
based on individual instances) must be used. This kind of knowledge is
therefore also known as indirect empirical knowledge.
The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology, stemming
both from the Greek word for "experience" and from the more specific
classical Greek and Roman usage of "empiric", referring to a
physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to
instruction in theory (this was its first usage).
The term "empirical" (rather than
"empiricism") also refers to the method of observation and experiment
used in the natural and social sciences. It is a fundamental requirement of the
scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against
observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori
reasoning, intuition or revelation.
Sir Francis Bacon can be considered an early Empiricist, through
his popularization of an inductive methodology for scientific inquiry, which
has since become known as the scientific method.
In the 17th and 18th Century, the members of the British
Empiricism school John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume were the primary
exponents of Empiricism.
1.4.2 Rationalism
Rationalism is any view appealing to intellectual and deductive
reason (as opposed to sensory experience or any religious teachings) as the
source of knowledge or justification. Thus, it holds that some propositions are
knowable by us by intuition alone, while others are knowable by being deduced through
valid arguments from intuited propositions. Depending on the strength of the
belief, this can result in a range of positions from the moderate view that
reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge, to the radical
position that reason is the only path to knowledge.
Rationalism relies on the idea that reality has a rational
structure in that all aspects of it can be grasped through mathematical and
logical principles, and not simply through sensory experience.
1.4.2.1 Intuition
Rationalists adopt at least one of three main claims:
Intuition/Deduction: Some propositions are knowable by us by
intuition alone, while others are knowable by being deduced from intuited
propositions. Some rationalists take intuition to be infallible, claiming that
whatever we intuit must be true; others allow for the possibility of false
intuited propositions. Some claim that only mathematics can be knowable by
intuition and deduction; some that ethical truths can also be intuited; some
more radical rationalists maintain that a whole range of metaphysical claims
(like the existence of God, free will and the duality of mind and body) are
include within the range of intuition and deduction.
1.4.2.2 Innate Knowledge
We have knowledge of some truths as part of our innate rational
nature. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to
consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself,
which has in some way been with us all along. Some rationalists claim that we
gained this innate knowledge in an earlier existence, some that God provided us
with it at creation, and others that it is part of our nature through natural
selection.
1.4.2.3 Innate Concepts
Some of the concepts (as opposed to actual knowledge) we employ
are part of our innate rational nature. Some would argue, however, that innate
concepts are entailed by innate knowledge, because a particular instance of
knowledge can only be innate if the concepts that are contained in the
proposition are also innate.[4]
René Descartes is one of the earliest and best known proponents
of Rationalism. He believed that knowledge of eternal truths (e.g. mathematics
and the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences) could be
attained by reason alone, without the need for any sensory experience. Other knowledge
e.g. the knowledge of physics, required experience of the world, aided by the
scientific method a moderate rationalist position. For instance, his famous
dictum "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") is a
conclusion reached a priori and not through an inference from experience.
Descartes held that some ideas (innate ideas) come from God; others ideas are
derived from sensory experience; and still others are fictitious (or created by
the imagination). Of these, the only ideas which are certainly valid, according
to Descartes, are those which are innate.
Baruch Spinoza expanded upon Descartes' basic principles of
Rationalism. His philosophy centered on several principles, most of which
relied on his notion that God is the only absolute substance (similar to
Descartes' conception of God), and that substance is composed of two
attributes, thought and extension. He believed that all aspects of the natural
world (including Man) were modes of the eternal substance of God, and can
therefore only be known through pure thought or reason.[5]
Gottfried Leibniz attempted to rectify what he saw as some of
the problems that were not settled by Descartes by combining Descartes' work
with Aristotle's notion of form and his own conception of the universe as
composed of monads. He believed that ideas exist in the intellect innately, but
only in a virtual sense, and it is only when the mind reflects on itself that
those ideas are actualized.
Immanuel Kant started as a traditional rationalist, having
studied Leibniz and Christian Wolff (1679 - 1754) but, after also studying the
empiricist David Hume's works; he developed a distinctive and very influential
Rationalism of his own, which attempted to synthesize the traditional
rationalist and empiricist traditions.
1.5 Four Principles of Ration
Fideism By Dr. Marbaniang
1.5.1 Consistency is not the
same as Conceivability
The rationality of Revelation
requires the consistency of its content. However, the inability to
conceptualize the Divine as reported by Revelation cannot be qualification for
its rejection as being inconsistent. Conceptions are basically empirical. Therefore,
an attempt to conceptualize the Divine is tantamount to doing empirical epistemic
and not rational fideistic epistemic. To cite as an example, it is evident that
the doctrine of Trinity must not be approached empirically. For that will only
lead to frustration. Consistency, however, means that the revelatory content
must not conflict with itself on any given point. However, this doesn’t mean
that divine reality can’t find any conceptual analogy (though misty) in
experience.[6]
1.5.2 Faith must Anchor in the
Ultimate
Existential fulfillment must
be anchored in the knowledge of divine reality. However, divine reality cannot
attract faith unless it manifests itself as concerned with human reality.
Unless God is concerned with humans, all human striving is pointless. Further,
unless God reveals Himself to man, faith as nothing substantial to base itself
on. Rational faith cannot build castles in the air. It needs a solid ground on
which it can stand. Therefore, Revelation must give some ultimate basis in which
faith can lay its anchor. Consequently, any Revelation that assumes ultimate
reality to be a transcendent negative (as in non-dualism) or an immanent
anything (as in pantheism or polytheism) offers no ground for rational faith. A
transcendent negative equals nothing and an immanent anything is not only
dispersive ground but also an attempt to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps,
for human reality is itself co-immanent with everything else. Therefore,
Revelation must provide a content to the transcendent ideal. As seen earlier,
two necessary anchoring attributes of the transcendent must be personality and
concern without which a meaningful I-Thou relationship is
impossible. To say that the transcendent cannot be known is to obstruct the
epistemics of divine reality. Further, in that sense, Revelation itself is no
revelation at all: it reveals nothing but that nothing can be known. Therefore,
it is argued Revelation must provide a positive, yet transcendental anchoring
ground for faith.[7]
1.5.3 Supernatural Phenomena do not Serve as
Data for Rational Fideism
Faith may wish to be
strengthened by phenomenal religious experience of signs, wonders, visions, and
miracles. However, supernatural phenomena in, of, and by themselves have no
revelatory content to serve as unambiguous data for rational fideism. Such
phenomena can serve as data for empirical epistemics but not for rational
fideism. Such empirical epistemics can ultimately lead only to some form of
naturalism, even if qualified by the ideal of divinity. Further, there is no
reason to doubt that the supernatural phenomena might be designed in such a way
as to mislead humans. This possibility is heightened by the biblical
proposition that the spirit-world is divided into two antagonistic kingdoms
with a political system and strategies, of which one kingdom is all set for
deceiving humanity to believe its lie. In such a case, it is almost or
absolutely impossible for humans to really know whether he is being deceived or
not. Thus, no supernatural phenomena, even religious experience such as visions
of ‘God’, can be the grounds for the rational fideistic epistemics of divine
reality.[8]
1.5.4 Rational Fideism is not
Fusion Epistemics
On the other hand, it is
harmony epistemics. The only fusion possible is at the dispensing of the other.
Harmony is the gaining of value not from within the system of contingent being
but from without. Fusion, it has been seen, either leads to the attribution of
the transcendental attributes to the empirical world or the contentment with
the empirical attributes as constituting reality. Thus, reason, as in
non-dualism, looks at all empirical reality as illusion, while experience sees
the pluralistic and contingent nature of reality as self-evident and regards
the concept of rational or metaphysical reality nonsensical, useless, and in
Hume’s words, consignable to the flames. Reason and experience cannot fuse
together absolutely to form some new epistemics. However, they can be
harmonized in their distinctions as distinct tones are harmonized in music.[9]
[1] A kind of knowledge or faith lies behind religious activities.
It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the first principles of things,
including abstract concepts such as being and knowing, based on abstract
reasoning, transcending physical matter or the laws of nature. Oxford
University, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition (USA: Oxford
University Press, 2001),
[2] Philip Schaff, Latin Christianity:
Its Founder, Tertullian (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian Classics
Ethereal Library, n .d), 412.
[3] Norman L. Geisler, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapid Michigan: Baker Books,
1999). Dd 30.
[4] Norman L. Geisler, Christian
Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Prince Press, 2003), 31-33.
[5] Geisler, Christian
Apologetics, 34.
[6] Domenic Marbaniang, Epistemic
of Devine Reality (Bangalore: CFCC, 2011), 219.
[7] Marbaniang, Epistemic of
Devine Reality, 219.
[8] Marbaniang, Epistemic of
Devine Reality, 220.
[9] Marbaniang, Epistemic of
Devine Reality, 220.
No comments:
Post a Comment