James Kalb, author of The Tyranny of Liberalism, kindly reviews The Last Superstition over at his blog. I thank him for his comments, but would want to clarify a couple of points. First, it’s not Christianity per se the truth of which I argue for in the book, but rather the truth of certain praeambula fidei or “preambles” of the Christian faith, namely the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the reality of the natural moral law. (To be sure, I do think that there are compelling arguments for the truth of Christianity specifically, but making that case would take another book.) And while I do hold that faith often involves (in Kalb’s words) “the habit of standing by views that are demonstrably correct in the face of nonrational temptations to abandon them” – this is, as I argue in TLS, what we do when we continue to trust in the goodness of God in the face of evil – I would not say that that is all there is to faith. In the strict theological sense, faith is an assent to truths known to be divinely revealed, and which could not be known other than through divine revelation (e.g. the Trinitarian nature of God). Part of what I wanted to emphasize in the book is that (contrary to the usual caricature) faith does not involve an ungrounded will to believe; though it involves trusting in what divine authority has revealed, the claim that such-and-such really has been revealed is nevertheless something for which rational arguments should (and, in the case of the central claims of Christianity, can) be given. But precisely because that which is “taken on faith” in this way cannot be known directly through philosophical arguments, it is bound to be more mysterious to us than that which can be directly known in that way. So, I agree with Kalb that we should avoid too rationalistic an account of the object of faith – my point was rather that the act of faith is still perfectly rational.
Thứ Sáu, 3 tháng 4, 2009
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
The principle of sufficient reason (PSR), in a typical Neo-Scholastic formulation, states that “there is a sufficient reason or adequate ne...
-
Concluding my overview of the main varieties of Thomism, with some final outtakes taken straight from the Aquinas cutting room floor : 6....
-
While we’re on the subject of Steve Martin , consider the following passage from his memoir Born Standing Up . Martin recounts the insight...
-
What’s more tiresome than reading yet another brain-dead atheist attack on the “Everything has a cause” straw man? Having to write up a r...
-
I commend to you the late historian of philosophy Paul Hoffman’s paper “Does Efficient Causation Presuppose Final Causation? Aquinas vs. ...
-
Today Jonah Goldberg took Kathleen Parker and others to task here for some of the silly and ill-informed things they have been saying in de...
-
On the subject of time and our awareness of it, Augustine says the following in The Confessions : But how does this future, which does no...
-
In a recent post I spoke of the soul after death as essentially the human being in a “radically diminished state.” The Aristotelian-Thomi...
-
Suppose you go out on a blind date and a friend asks you how it went. You pause and then answer flatly, with a slight smirk: “Well, I like...
-
In the sixth of his Meditations on First Philosophy , Descartes writes: [T]here is a vast difference between mind and body, in respect tha...
Blogger news
Blogger templates
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(170)
-
▼
tháng 4
(12)
- It’s just so obvious!
- The interaction problem, Part II
- TLS on radio
- Spinoza on final causes
- TLS radio podcast
- Descartes’ “clear and distinct perception” argument
- More on the APA petition controversy
- TLS on radio
- Down with Feezer!
- Give me that old time atheism
- Kalb on TLS
- Stove Award winner announced!
-
▼
tháng 4
(12)
Blogroll
About
Copyright ©
Edward Feser | Powered by Blogger
Design by Azmind.com | Blogger Template by NewBloggerThemes.com
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét