Reasons for believing : on the rationality of Christian faith PDF
Preview Reasons for believing : on the rationality of Christian faith
REASONS FOR BELIEVING Contemporary European Cultural Studies Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala, Series Editors This series publishes English translations of works by contemporary Euro- pean intellectuals from philosophy, religion, politics, law, ethics, aesthet- ics, social sciences, and history. Volumes included in this series will not be included simply for their specifi c subject matter, but also for their ability to interpret, describe, explain, analyze, or suggest theories that recognize its historicity. Proposals and suggestions for this series should be directed to: Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala, Series Editors The Davies Group Publishers PO Box 440140 Aurora, Colorado, 80044-0140 US Manfred Frank, The Boundaries of Agreement Antonio Livi, Reasons for Believing Josef Niznik, The Arbitrariness of Philosophy Paolo Crocchiolo, The Amorous Tinder José Guimón, Art and Madness REASONS FOR BELIEVING On the Rationality of Christian Faith ANTONIO LIVI A volume in the series Contemporary European Cultural Studies Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala, Editors The Davies Group, Publishers Aurora, Colorado Previously published as Razionalità della fede nella Rivelazione: Un‘ analisi fi lo- sofi ca alla luce della logica aletica, Casa editrice Leonardo da Vinci, Rome, 200. ©2002, 2005 Antonio Livi. All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be re pro duced, stored in an in for ma tion retrieval system, or tran scribed, in any form or by any means — electronic, dig i tal, me chan i cal, pho to copy ing, re cord ing, or otherwi- se — with out the ex press writ ten per mis sion of the pub lish er, and the hold er of copyright. Sub mit all in quir ies and re quests to the publisher: The Davies Group, Publishers, PO Box 440140, Au ro ra, CO 80044-0140, USA Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Livi, Antonio. [Razionalità della fede nella rivelazione. English] Reasons for believing : on the rationality of Christian faith / Antonio Livi. p. cm. -- (Contemporary European cultural studies) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-888570-76-8 (alk. paper) 1. Faith and reason--Christianity. I. Title. II. Series. BT50.L55513 2005 231’.042--dc22 2005020299 Printed in the United States of America. Published 2005. The Davies Group Publishers, Aurora CO 1234567890 Contents Foreword vii Preface xv Introduction 1 Part One: Philosophical Insight on Knowing and Believing Chapter One: What we Know About God Through Reason Alone 11 Chapter Two: Rationality of Believing in General 31 Part Two: Why Believing in Christian Revelation is Rational Chapter Three: What Believing in Divine Revelation Means 59 Chapter Four: The Rationality of Faith in Divine Revelation 95 Part Three: Why According to Some Modern Philosophers Christian Faith is Based on Skepticism Chapter Five: Modern Skepticism and Descartes’ SSSeeeaaarrrccchhh fffooorrr UUUnnnccceeerrrtttaaaiiinnntttyyy 111177 ChapterSix: Cartesian Epistemology at the Center of the Debate on Faith and Reason 141 Conclusion 147 References 155 vi Reasons for Believing Foreword For many years, Antonio Livi has addressed key issues concern- ing the logical basis of the act of faith, understood as the ascent to a reality which in itself is knowable yet beyond the ordinary limits of human cognition. Livi’s success in dealing with this issue is quite clear from the bibliographical references listed at the end of this work. However, the infl uence of such speculation has been some- what limited to an Italian audience. With this publication (which Santiago Zabala has generously included in his series Contemporary European Cultural Studies), that infl uence will undoubtedly extend to a wider audience. In fact, this is precisely Zabala’s intention with the publication of the series itself, convinced as he is that the sup- posed ‘rift’ between European and Anglo-American thought is largely overstated. A diversity of languages should not impede a reciprocal cross-pollination between the two cultural contexts, and the writings of authors such as Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo demonstrate that North American and European philosophical trends actually dovetail on many levels. The English version of Razionalità della fede nella Rivelazione (signifi cantly augmented and modifi ed in terms of the original) comes at an important time in contemporary history, when many serious scholars are refl ecting on what can be termed a renewed, large-scale interest in religion and religious themes. The Presiden- tial election results of 2004 in the United States clearly surprised many thinkers (especially in Europe), because a large number of voters contended that their decision was based on ‘religious issues’, where the two candidates were easily differentiated. It now seems viii Reasons for Believing fashionable to cover religious themes even in the secular press, and around the world religious convictions are being scrutinized and weighed due to the considerable infl uence such ‘beliefs’ exert on world politics and demographics. Two renowned sociologists of religion, Rodney Stark and Massimo Introvigne, co-authored the book, GGGoooddd HHHaaasss RRReeetttuuurrrnnneeeddd ((oorriiggiinnaallllyy iinn IIttaalliiaann,, 22000033)),, aaccccuurraatteellyy demonstrating the rise of religion and religions in the West. Al- though many religious leaders perhaps lament an apparent decrease in religious practice, statistically speaking, there have been few pe- riods in history more religiously charged than our own. Even hard core atheists are taking another look at God’s existence: recently, Antony Flew (the well known atheist from Oxford, famous for his chapter entitled “The Presumption of Atheism” in his 1984 book God, Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis) has admitted that he now defends the existence of (some type of) God.1 Para- doxically enough, Professor Flew’s turnaround was motivated by what he calls “scientifi c evidence” of the presence of a Supreme In- telligence. This is paradoxical only in the sense that many would suggest that scientifi c investigation tends to demonstrate that there is no need to assert the existence of such an Intelligence in order to explain the intricacies of nature, and that religious refl ections have no place in ‘true’ science. The classical science-religion confl ict is ac- tually developing into more of a hhhaaarrrmmmooonnniiiooouuusss rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp ((aalltthhoouugghh such a relationship is quite nuanced). 1. Cf. Institute for Metascientifi c Research, news bulletin for December 9, 2004: “The Institute for Metascientifi c Research (IMR) announced today that one of the best-known atheists in the academic world, Professor Antony Flew of the University of Reading, United Kingdom, has accepted the existence of God. In a symposium sponsored by the IMR at New York University earlier this year, Professor Flew stated that developments in modern science had led him to accept the action of an Intelligent Mind in the creation of the world. In ‘Has Science Discovered God?’ — the recording of the symposium released today — Flew said his conclusion was infl uenced by developments in DNA research.” Foreword ix What makes this work particularly apropos today, however, is its focus on a sub-theme of this ‘religious re-awakening’, namely the notion that certain religions make objective truth claims. The notion that opposing truth claims can be compared and contrasted among different religious cccrrreeeeeedddsss hhaass bbeeccoommee vveerryy ccoonnttrroovveerrssiiaall aass ooff llaattee.. For a large majority of scholars in the fi eld of religion, philosophy and sociology, religious beliefs are intrinsically subjective and there- fore do not allow for objective scrutiny regarding different truth claims. Most religious studies are therefore simply descriptive; what makes Livi’s approach interesting and timely is his insistence that there is a fundamental rrraaatttiiiooonnnaaalll ccoommppoonneenntt ttoo rreelliiggiioouuss aasssseenntt tthhaatt can be examined and weighed against the back-drop of a type of ‘horizon of truth’, i.e., some claims by religions are true, and some are not. Some years back, John Hick seemed to be hinting at the same notion of the rationality of religious belief when he wrote, “The right question is whether it is rational for the religious man himself, given that his religious experience is coherent, persistent, and compelling, to affi rm the reality of God.”2 Yet his subsequent affi rmations actually suggest that the rationality to be investigated is not that which obtains between the religious person’s bbbeeellliiieeefff aanndd the ooobbbjjjeeecccttt ooff tthhee bbeelliieeff iittsseellff,, bbuutt rraatthheerr tthhee rraattiioonnaalliittyy ooff tthhee rreellii-- gious person in believing what he/she does. Hick states that we must conclude that the religious person’s belief is rational for him/her because of the subjective experience: “What is in question is the rationality of the one who has the religious experiences. If we regard him as a rational person we must acknowledge that he is rational in believing what, given his experiences, he cannot help believing” (p. 87). Livi refocuses the entire question concerning the rationality of belief, and he does so within an epistemological context referred to as aaallleeettthhhiiiccc lllooogggiiiccc,, ii..ee..,, tthhee eeppiisstteemmoollooggiiccaall iinnvveessttiiggaattiioonn ooff tthhee llooggiiccaall consistency of religious truth claims. 2. John Hick, book review of Antony Flew’s GGGoooddd aaannnddd PPPhhhiiilllooosssoooppphhhyyy iinn Theology Today, Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 86-87. x Reasons for Believing This is a bold move, and strikes a central nerve of the corpus of serious refl ection on religion. Raising the question about the ra- tional structure of religious assent ushers in a host of polemics and controversies. “Is what he/she believes ooobbbjjjeeeccctttiiivvveeelllyyy ttrruuee?? IIss iitt ttrruuee tthhaatt such-and-such (i.e., the belief) is the case?” There is no doubt that the religious subject truly believes such-and-such to be the case, and this constitutes the iiinnnttteeerrrnnnaaalll rraattiioonnaalliittyy ooff tthhee bbeelliieeff;; yyeett tthhee external rationality of the belief comes into focus when we ask whether or not the belief corresponds to ‘how the world actually is’.3 Now, from a scientifi c point of view, the question is rather moot, for scientifi c investigation generally shows us ‘how the world is’ from an empiri- cccaaalll ssttaannddppooiinntt ((yyeett nnoott aann eeemmmpppiiirrriiiccciiisssttt ssttaannddppooiinntt))4, whereas religious beliefs generally purport to get at ‘how the world is’ in some tran- scendent way. Scientifi cally sound evidence generally does not im- ply a free choice: we would consider a subject who chooses to deny clear scientifi c evidence as quite unreasonable (although there are those who, for example, continue to maintain even today that the world is fl at). Aside from the fact that contemporary science owes much to the complexities of ‘scientifi c theories’ where free options and choices do play a part in the scientifi c conclusions, generally speaking, reasonable people treat scientifi c conclusions as universal- ly true, reproducible and accurate to such a degree as to make them iiinnnddduuubbbiiitttaaabbblllee.. IInn ffaacctt,, ‘‘aasssseenntt’’ ttoo sscciieennttiififi cc eevviiddeennccee iiss nnoott aann ooppttiioonn as long as one desires to remain within the realm of reasonableness. Certainly what counts as ‘scientifi c evidence’ in some specifi c case is open to discussion; yet a failure to recognize the truth presented by actual evidence ordinarily is considered either a sign of mental pathology or an indication that the subject is lying (i.e., internally 3. Cf. Hilary Putnam, TTThhheee TTThhhrrreeeeeefffooolllddd CCCooorrrddd... MMMiiinnnddd,,, BBBooodddyyy aaannnddd WWWooorrrlllddd ((CCoolluummbbiiaa Univ. Press, New York, 1999). 4. Cf. Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal, “Defense of a Modest Scientifi c Realism”, talk given at the Bielefeld-ZiF Conference, Welt und Wissen – Monde et Savoir – World and Knowledge, September 2001.
The list of books you might like
