Rational Christianity - A faith of reason?

I separate the Christian faith into two branches, the Irrational, which insists in the absolute truth of the literal word of the Bible and maintains there is no separation between the natural world and the supernatural, and the Rational branch, which teaches there is no conflict between faith and the scientific method or evolution, and that there is a separation of the natural and the supernatural realms.
When I referred to these Clergy as Rational Christians, I was challenged by a contention that they were just as Irrational as their bizarre brethren, the only difference was in degree.Mainstream Christianity tolerates as possible, theological teachings that the separate supernatural realm has been reasoned to be within the mind of man. It is here that existence of spiritual events like the resurrection and authentic faith must reside.Can a Christian accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real event, yet still be considered rational in the secular sense in their understanding of the natural world?(promoted by AdminNWR from Rational Christianity - A faith of reason?)

I'm not convinced that we have a clear meaning for "rational". Or, as I have been known to put it, That's a bit of a play on multiple meanings for the terms.Using your terms, the Roman Catholic church seems to accept evolution, but it also accepts the resurrection. How do they fit into your division into rational and irrational?For the record, I don't see belief in the resurrection as necessarily irrational. Perhaps one could say it is arational (neither rational nor irrational).

quote:

---

I don't see belief in the resurrection as necessarily irrational.

---

I would think it would depend on the reasons the Rational Christian supposedly uses for why he feels the resurrection was an actual happening. We would have to see if the reasons themselves are rational not necessarily the belief.If one reason is because there is no satisfactory proof either way for whether the resurrection happened or not, is that considered rational?This message has been edited by purpledawn, 01-22-2006 07:28 PM

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the rationality of the faith is illustrated by the insistence of a separation of the natural and spiritual realms, and acknowledgement of separate authority in each.As Pope John Paul II put it at a conference of biologists at the Vatican (an edit):

quote:

---

"I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth...

​

It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences...

​

The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake". In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person.

​

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."

---

That is an extraordinary statement. Where JPII talks about faith and belief, he places that in the context of value in the realm of the aesthetic abstract. He explicitly accepts that faith must be subordinate to knowledge of the natural world, even to the point of reliance on it for "very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being" - a spiritual being, as opposed to a species.At the same time, the church recognizes that the resurrection may be outside of natural science and knowledge, thus, like the abstract value of a human being, an irrelevant topic for scientific investigation.Rational Christianity, including but not limited to Roman Catholics, has allowed theology to be developed and taught within its ranks that place the resurrection entirely outside of a historical element. Non-material resurrection is the belief that Jesus' corpse need not have come back to life in order for the resurrection to be significant. These theologians say that according to New Testament faith, the raising is an act of God within God's dimensions, therefore it can not be a historical event in the strict sense: it is not an event which can be verified by historical science with the aid of historical methods. For the raising of Jesus is not a miracle violating the laws of nature, verifiable within the present world, not a supernatural intervention which can be located and dated in space and time. There was nothing to photograph or record, neither the raising itself nor the person raised can be apprehended, objectified or measured by historical methods. As the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner once wrote, "it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus neither can be nor intends to be a `historical' event".Is this the understanding of most Christians? No, it isn't, but neither is a traditional, physical view of the resurrection held to be an absolute in Rational Christian denominations.This message has been edited by atthisaddress, 01-23-2006 09:34 PM

Interesting comments. Thanks.When science eventually comes up with an account of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, I wonder how the RC church will change their statement.

No. There is no way that could be the case, if you think about it rationally. No scientist I've ever met would permit that.MickThis message has been edited by mick, 01-23-2006 09:37 PM

Religion is a topic of discussion and study in scientific circles, and as far as I can discern, does not address the authenticity of abstract, aesthetic judgement.As an evolutionary biologist puts it in "Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society" by David Sloan Wilson:

quote:

---

Religious groups function as adaptive units through the coordinated action of individuals. A moral system is important for regulating behavior. Moral systems are frequently expressed in religious terms: "Supernatural agents and their relationships with humans can be explained as adaptations designed to enable human groups to function as adaptive units." Whether the religious terms point to an existing reality is not the issue. What is important is the function of such belief in organizing human behavior to work for a better here and now. Skeptics who focus on and scorn religious "hocus-pocus" are missing the point.

---

In other words, organized religious beliefs confer an evolutionary advantage. Pope John Paul II would, I suspect, agree.

You are missing the point, no doubt due to the clumsy way I stated the proposition. A better way to state it would be "Can a Christian accept the resurrection as an authentic event, and still be considered rational in their understanding and acceptance of knowledge about the natural world?"

Could a Christian believe in a soul and still be considered rational in their understanding and acceptance of knowledge about the natural wold?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that belief in a soul, defined as 'a creation of God within God's dimensions, immaterial and separate from the natural world' would find wide acceptance among Christians, even, as I define them, Rational and Irrational Christian alike.

I agree that they make available a support group, and that can be an advantage. I'm not sure I would call it an evolutionary advantage, since beliefs are not inherited.

May I ask you to expand on this a bit?

quote:

---

For the record, I don't see belief in the resurrection as necessarily irrational. Perhaps one could say it is arational (neither rational nor irrational).

---

I'm curious how you define arational.Just to let folks in this thread know something about me, I am an Atheist, I do not actively deny the beliefs of others, I simply hold that for myself, belief in a supernatural faith is irrelevant to my existence. I define this for myself only, not as a definition of all Atheists.When I perceive that a faith is harmful, I will criticise that faith in context to the harm I think it is doing, tooth and nail, without mercy.

Can you be a little irrational and still be considered "rational"? Maybe you can. You can lie a little bit and still be considered honest.Can you be an epistomological naturalist who, for one or two events, posits a supernaturalist explanation? Again, I don't know that you can't. But unlike honesty it seems that you kinda have to go all the way; either you're a rational naturalist for everything, or you're not really one at all. Even in the "demon-haunted" world of your Irrational Christians, there are things that happen "naturally." In that case their irrationality and your rationality are only differences of degree.

Did that answer what I asked?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The case as made by Wilson, as I understand it, is that groups that could conceive belief as (typically) a real world fact, had an advantage because it had the practical effect of enhanced group identity and loyalty. It allowed other practical concepts that strengthen group cohesion.This is of course, speculation. We don't have examples of groups that could not conceive belief, or if that was ever a trait of our species.Here's how he put it:

quote:

---

If there is a trade-off between the two forms of realism, such that our beliefs can become more adaptive only by becoming factually less true, then factual realism will be the loser every time...
Factual realists detached from practical reality were not among our ancestors. It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.

---