[The previous series, 105, can be found [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/jrps-bite-sized-metaphysics-series-105/412/1]here. An index with links to all parts of the work as they are posted can be found here. This series, 106, picks up with the topic arrived at the end of the previous series.]
[Entry 1 for “Belief and Reason”]
Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the ‘party line’ that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.
A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God’s status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.
And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that ground. However, since I obviously do not advocate a faith/reason disparity, this type of sceptic would agree that I can continue with an attempt to build an argument that might, or might not, arrive at God’s existence and characteristics. (Though he might perhaps be able to nix my attempt later on other grounds, of course.)
But some sceptics (and even some people who profess God’s existence) accept a faith/reason disparity on different grounds. So, I will need to consider whether (and why) I should consider this to be a facetious division under any conditions, even apart from specifically religious grounding (or, more accurately in my experience, apart from trying to protect religious convictions and doctrines from critical assessment.)