Faith and Reason

After a week off due to the church anniverary, our icebreaker this week was whether you are a "thinking" person or a "feeling" person. When you give your opinion, is it "I think . . ." or "I feel . . .". There was an interesting story on this recently as well in the Herald Sun.

We've been discussing arguments for the existence of God. The core issue is whether there is a rational basis for our faith; our theme is that we have "faith seeking understanding". If there is no rational basis for God, then the discussion is meaningless. While most "feel" their faith, we can also "think" about our faith as well.

Simon facilitated today and gave the following handout.

HANDOUT

Proofs and assumptions

Objective proofs	Assumptions
Ontological	God is the greatest that the mind can think of What the mind can think of exists
Cosmological (First cause)	God is the first cause There is always a cause
Teleological (Design)	God is the designer The design was designed by the designer
Moral (Esthetic)	God is moral or origin of morality There is morality in this world
Subjective proofs
Personal experience	Subjective ecstasy experiences confirms God Subjective ecstasy experiences reflects reality
Tacit Knowledge	Knowing God is not necessarily an explainable experience but is not less real as other physical phenomena
God is inside	Redefine God as the ultimate concern We have ultimate concern
Revelation proof	Revelation is the only legitimate assumption God cannot be known by any other means

PBS series with Bill Moyers on faith and reason:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/watch.html

Interview with Colin Mcginn

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/rss/media/gordonandmcginn.mp3

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/faithandreason102_print.html (transcript)

What is the difference between trying to prove a unicorn exist versus trying to prove God exists?

One has direct implication to us and one is not

What really was McGinn referring to when he talk about God dying out?

Why do you think Mr. McGinn did not feel there was a lack of longing for “god” or transcendent?

What is reason according to Mcginn? Is that contrary to faith?

Interview with Sir John Houghton

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/rss/media/rodriguezandhoughton.mp3

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/faithandreason105_print.html (transcript)

Why is the global warming question not as big as the God questions?

Does the fact that God “make things make themselves” add anything to the watchmaker (design argument)?

What does Sir John Houghton define God? How is that different from how McGinn define it and what make Houghton differs from McGinn?

How does he illustrate the similarity between science and faith? And is that the same relationship applicable to reason and faith?

A few closing remarks:

1. Existence of God question simultaneously invokes several other questions:

Who God is?

What is this God as commonly know to be?

How may we know this God?

2. The following are even deeper questions:

What are the sources of our knowledge of God?

Why must we know this God?

NT Wright: “if you simply address the God-shaped blank that people think they've got, the God you end up with is the God shaped by the blank. The real God specializes in taking the blanks in people's lives and pulling and tugging and turning them into a new shape."

3. “… there is an error in the frequently repeated statement that we live in a pluralistic society. We are pluralist in respect of what we call belief but we are not pluralist in respect of what we call facts.” This leads to a very interesting dichotomy of knowing and believing.

4. Ultimately, the question of God is the question of how we know God and believe it or not ultimately it is a hermeneutic question.