Alvin Plantinga defines "fideism" as "the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." The fideist therefore "urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious," and therefore may go on to disparage the claims of reason.[3] The fideist seeks truth, above all: and affirms that reason cannot achieve certain kinds of truth, which must instead be accepted only by faith.[4] Plantinga's definition might be revised to say that what the fideist objects to is not so much "reason" per se — it seems excessive to call Blaise Pascal anti-rational — but evidentialism: the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence.I wonder if this belief is widespread? I always thought that Christians wanted their religious beliefs to be rational and certainly the Intelligent Design Creationists are among those who think that God's existence has been demonstrated.
The fideist notes that religions that are founded on revelation call their faithful to believe in a transcendent deity even if believers cannot fully understand the object of their faith. Some fideists also contend that human rational faculties are themselves untrustworthy, because the entire human nature has been corrupted by sin, and as such the conclusions reached by human reason are therefore untrustworthy: the truths affirmed by divine revelation must be believed even if they find no support in human reason. Fideism, of a sort which has been called naive fideism, is frequently found in response to anti-religious arguments; the fideist resolves to hold to what has been revealed as true in his faith, in the face of contrary lines of reasoning.
Specifically, fideism teaches that rational or scientific arguments for the existence of God are fallacious and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the truth of Christian theology.
Nevertheless, when discussing the existence of God with most Christians I've discovered that the "faith" argument is eventually trotted out as their main defense. It's another way of saying that science and religion are different ways of knowing. Science relies on evidence and rationality and religion relies on something else.
Maybe this is why religion gets special privileges in our society? It's because religion doesn't play by the same rules that we use to demonstrate stupidity in politics and economics. I doubt that most religious people could define fideism and I doubt that they could defend it as well as Alvin Plantinga, but I bet it's what they really believe; namely, that faith cannot be criticized using rational arguments and evidence.
8 comments :
“Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out: ‘it is a matter of faith and above reason.’" - John Locke, " An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" (IV:17)
Most believers are fideists at heart, I'm afraid.
Sadly, most Calvinists I've come accross believe, as Calvin said (citing the hateful book of Romans--Calvinists just LOVE Romans (1:18-32)), that God has imprinted himself into the minds of all, and that atheism is just veiled denial of what they know "in their hearts to be true".
One can easily find Bill Craig saying this in debates, books, etc.
This, I've heard, is why Calvinists say that god is completely justified in damming Inuits or Aborigines to hell: they believe in god (in their hearts), yet deny him, and thus deserve to be roasted eternally. Faith over works everytime.
Awful stuff, that apologetics.
But, yes, fideism manifests itself in many ways: Presuppositional Apologetics or "Reformed (read: Calvinist/Presbyterian) Epistemology" (Plantinga, Kelly James Clark, Wolterstorff, Alston, and other thinkers have endorsed the view).
Whether explicit or implicit; at the beginning or at the end; denial of Evidentialism is a route for the learned and unlearned theist alike.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/
Never come across fideism before? Really? Just where have you been Larry? If you're interested in the polarities of 'head vs. heart', 'left brain vs. right brain', 'analysis vs. intuition', 'knowledge vs feeling' etc., polarities about which (post)modern religious contentions often revolve, 'fideism' is one of the first categories you learn along with the related category of 'gnosticism'.
Since you missed it first time round try this:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/does-acupuncture-work.html
or even this:
google=fideism+sandwalk+reeves
Fideism is intellectual dishonesty, or throwing in the towel.
Like Timothy, I'm amazed you do not know of the term and underlying concept, Larry. If you are a critic of religion you had better know the typology and diagnoses.
Fideism, incidentally, has been the religious view of a good many excellent scientists, such as Linnaeus. It appears to be compartmentalised most of the time to religion, leaving their science relatively untouched; but of course you Dawkinsians do not allow that possibility, do you?
Timothy V Reeves asks,
Never come across fideism before?
No, I don't think so.
Really? Just where have you been Larry?
I don't know. Is it so common that everyone but me has heard of it?
John Wilkins asks,
Fideism, incidentally, has been the religious view of a good many excellent scientists, such as Linnaeus. It appears to be compartmentalised most of the time to religion, leaving their science relatively untouched; but of course you Dawkinsians do not allow that possibility, do you?
I can at least imagine the possibility of keeping one's science and one's religion in two different compartments.
I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who succeeds in doing so.
If I were absolutely convinced that supernatural beings exist then I would use that knowledge to inform my science. It would seem ridiculous to exclude God from any explanation of the natural world.
Larry,
I think the best introduction to fideism is Martin Gardner's "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" (link).
I must admit to being baffled by his position, but at the same time I have difficulty leveling a criticism that he himself has not already leveled. Case in point, his blisteringly negative review of his own book.
Yep. It's common ... though I didn't know there was a name for it.
To me, it's just repackaged solipsism and shows that many Christians know that what they believe has no basis in reality.
To see some stunningly painful examples of this, take a look at the whywontgodhealamputees.com forums, especially the mailbag section;
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?board=4.0
Any reply to a solipsist will work on this nonsense, though a simple "I have faith that you don't know what you are talking about." ... or something similar is usually effective.
Post a Comment