[The previous series, 103, can be found [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/jrps-bite-sized-metaphysics-series-103/383/1]here. An index with links to all parts of the work as they are posted can be found here. This series, 104, picks up with the topic arrived at the end of the previous series.]
[Entry 1 for “One Brief History of the Reason/Faith Dichotomy”]
There are many devout people who (rightly, I believe) value a faith in God above all other possessions, but who will also see my attempts as striking against a true relationship with God.
I think they are quite correct (as I will discuss much later) that it is better to have a living relationship with God and to work with Him, than only to understand God in some technical sense. Furthermore, I agree that if it is possible to discover the existence and character of God by reasoning from neutral propositions, this neither can nor shall ultimately benefit the thinker unless he takes the next step and chooses to work with God personally.
[Footnote: Such work might, by necessity, entail service–assuming we discover we are not equal to, or superior to God; and perhaps even then!–and I suspect the concept of being a [u]servant is an emotional barrier for many sceptics. At least, I find it to be an emotional barrier for many believers (including myself!); and I do not know why a sceptic, of all people, would have an easier time with the concept, especially in today’s individualistic Western society. Nevertheless, emotional barriers are not logical barriers. If the best I can be is a servant of God, in the work that He works, then it would be unrealistic (to say the least) for me to treat the situation as being otherwise. I will have much more to say about this later.]
But although I agree with these notions, I do not think it logically follows from these notions that such a discovery by logical analysis must necessarily fail. Consequently, these notions do not stand in the way of making attempts along this line.