h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks Recumbentman,

I have tried to leave out my opinion and own ideas keeping things non-personal, unbiased and even (as much as I can muster!) .

The conclusions I make are those of the others that I reference. If this is not clear and you still think they maybe are "mine", it's easy for me to quote more directly to the sources under reference. If there is anything specific you want to mention in this respect please direct my attention to that area and I'll give it focus.

I will also look into adding a reference to Kant. I see you appreciate from your comments that has a big part to play in the development of the Theological theory of transcendence as pure reason, this is typicaly done in terms of the development of the concept of the "logos". That's how I read it, and I did not comment on it. I'd be surprised if Benedict was making reference outside of that context. I'll look again at the Regensburg address to see the issue/questions you mention. There is a lot in the speech and I didn't comment on everything.


Otherwise thanks for the +ve remarks.

my aforementioned mate won't let me navigate for a reason (when summer rolls around we'll be walking the AT). I can never make up my mind! Okay, perhaps he has more than a single reason as I seem to have issues with compasses. But still, not wishing to clutter up more space with nonsense just saying from personal memorable experience it's sensible to always ask three people, not one, for directions.

advisors are only there so we can take their advice mindlessly and have somebody to blame

I remember in Issues of Conscience my teacher told us the first day we're to have a test, a practical that'll count for the entire semester and he lined us out the door the rules were simple "follow my orders" so we stayed silent walked when he blowed the whistle stopped when he blowed the whistle skipped like fairies in the freezing parking lot (one girl failed as she wore a miniskirt and refused to leave school grounds and face bitter winds) anything because if we don't do what he says he'll flunk us. my worse feeling (and still I cringe to think on it) was when my french teacher madame went up to me and smiled "hi, Lily" and I kept my head down just kept walking past... he had selected two assistants whose role was to keep us in line and pull out the rule breakers if they are lax about enforcement and he catches them at being merciful then they fail. thus some people failed.

we marched back to the classroom and he tells us we've all failed. it makes me angry now thinking about it (not the failing but why oh why didn't I stand up for what I believe in?) it's so easy to say I'll do the right thing but when the chance arises I don't because of a lousy grade - not even for family or my life! there's guidance counselors, principal, superintendants, board of education! he was abusing his authority, and just because he's a teacher doesn't mean he could take away our rights... but he hadn't taken them we gave them up.

life is difficult in that it's full of little steps that all seem so right at the moment and yet who know which road that might lead? I have a voice, a body, and a self

sometimes we try seeking truth but the best way to find a way is by losing yourself *looks through coloured eyes* anyway back to reading your entry!

Well maybe the chap was just trying to make a silly point having watched too many films like deap poets society, etc. Along the lines of "that which does not kill me, makes me stronger"?

Now who said that ?

a) Johann Wolgang Von Goethe
b) Frederik Nietzche
c) Lance Amstrong
d) All of the above

Open Book Test

You cannot trademark the truth - if it is objective, since the eminent domain in not here, but transcendent. (so some people think)

I want to say Nietzsche unfortunately I cannot as my e) cross-country coach wins

or was that no pain no gain?

eminent domain - private companies can buy property and you have to give it up for their price if they pay surplus taxes wasn't that a court decision while we were sleeping/absorbed in our small worlds or is it just me hallucinating?

you can't own people either. I've tried that before. "if at once you don't succeed, try to fail again" the only way to keep a friend sometimes is just to be one.

we walked in having no questions to ask him. he introduced the class as "welcome to death and destruction 101. in this class we learn about the people who died and the people who destroy."

some people who have the mentality "if you don't learn history you're doomed to repeat it" others "if you don't learn history you're doomed to repeat 11th grade" I always liked Kurt Vonnegut's remark: history is a list of surprises. students of history are prepared to be surprised again... something like that (is too lazy to look up the exact wording in Hi-Ho) because it's so wonderfully complex! we learn by experience but the people change... I always compare it to how I know I should pack for school when my dad tells me to pack but I don't because I'm lazy and in the middle of reading a good book (Sophie's Choice, boo-yah) yet I know as an obedient child I should. hmm, does that make an inkling of sense to you?

he doesn't know the answers. but he facilitates the questioning. it's a serious subject, and he expects us to be mature about the readings. moreso, he wants us - not to put ourselves in their positions because we cannot - to examine ourselves as individuals. I remember one of the most staggering and painful questions we came up with in class was "isn't it better off for the Jews that the Holocaust happened?" Since the Jewish have always been persecuted, and all Hitler did was that he tapped into the scientific "evidence" (provided ironically enough by scientish named Rosenburg) that Jews were sub-human, then won't the Jewish be still persecuted had we not felt like we have to make up for our atrocity...

hopefully not. anyhow the point of the class (and it had been gutsy of the school to allow this course) was to see how we're all prejudiced. there's no use denying how we would judge to survive as individuals. however despite not everybody born/looked at equally, everybody is entitled to being treated equally. this is my idlycally (sp!) simple point of view.

All of the above I think, but your personal experience of the cross country coach is something you can put your personal faith in, since the others are albeit well supported hearsay. So I can't flunk you.

ah but why need I to put my faith in him? I already KNOW he's like that.

*grins devilishly*

Its good to KNOW stuff - OK you win

but people change. *laughs* life is immutable and death is the only beginning to a state of non-change.

I don't win. "we time you with a calender" remember?

anyway to business (instead of bulk)

Entry: Towards a Critical Rational Fideism, or When a Rose is Not Not a Rose - A14480804
Author: Pilgrim4Truth - U5734655

posted that to be easier for people to access as there is backlog of criticism. it seems to this researcher that your guide entry was provocative

only halfway through (sorry was distracted) but wanted to throw this idea out before it gets lost in transition

or could be translation

Michael Crichton wrote/proposed in Disclosure that people's behaviours are there to solve a problem. that's it. our thinking is just aimed at finding effective solutions to overcome obstacles.

this statement bothers me because of my experience my "reason" right direction

what about empathetic listening? what about the times when we just want sympathy or somebody to talk to? nowadays it's advice a dime a dozen, and it seems people just want to solve it and move elsewhere, to a different problem

then again you'd get some great advice sometimes as the more distant you are the more fair and orderly the solution is!

just go pick a direction. there is always ability to change over a lifetime, whether you would or not. what's all this fuss about efficiency, and not messing up?

how about a scientifically grounded spin (w00t oxymoron)? all forms of life on earth depend on the energy provided by sunlight but these photosynthesis processes only take up about 10% efficiency. all forms of life is supported by poor efficiency or in other words an inefficient system.

maybe it's like wall street. "promise the world, deliver as little as you can" oh wait *smiles* that was amusing but not what I meant, tricked ya didn't I

basically I get the impression you want ineffiency as you can make more money from opportunities for growth and expansion

perhaps people are the same way. more venturing out of comfort zones more failures and you learn more more payback in terms of knowledge

GuideML Clinic (A187229) is a good place to learn the vagaries of the whole header/footnote thing .

"Quo Vadis – “Where are we going”?" - Is it really necessary to include Latin in this? I know no more than a few words, but I presume one is a translation of the other. Doing that is kind of pointless in my opinion unless you are quoting a source and want to show both original and translated versions. It's a small point, I know .

Entry has improved, but still a fair way to go.

As you say it is not necessary - it has a kind of meaning for some Theists whose tradition has St Peter be asked this as he leaves Rome to escape persecution. He has a vision and hears these words, turns goes back and .... but its not worth the confusion.

For sure there are formating issues, some typos, some comemnts about having some aspects of the philosopher Kants comments mentioned, and making double sure that folks know the conclusions are not my personal opinion but ones based on the recent comments from the leader of the worlds largest Theist community (!). These I can do easily enough. But before I do I'd like to hear what a few others have to say, for the sake simplicity!

Thanks

Recumbentman, post 78,

OK - Heavy Theology Alert!

On re-reading the section of the Regensburg address you comment on, referencing Kant.

His comments are on an inter-faith issue between Catholics and Protestants. Benedict XVI is saying the body of scripture has come through a "Hellenization" process (via Augustine and Aquinas primarily who developed Metaphysics he contends) that has built a tradition of an integration of reason-based thought. He goes on to say that this was to a certain extent jetisoned by Reformers who had a desire to go back to a "sola scripture" interpretation, free from a syncretic teaching authority of Rome developed in the preceding millenia.

And Kant he references in that context as saying "needed to set thinking aside" (i.e., reason-based) in order to make room for faith (based on sola scripture). Benedict thinks Kant took this as a radical step, beyond where the Reformers had perhaps intended, placing faith-based interpretation integrated with a "transcendent" reasoning (Kant is particulalry strong in this area granted).

This would result - in his words - "denying it access to reality as a whole" (meaning the reality of the whole of the transcendent AND immanent reality). Keeping reasoning about "immanence" is a crucial part Benedict is clearly contending since that is the universe of natural philosophy.

For more on this take a look at :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28philosophy%29 (where you'll see the massive contribution of Kant leveraged)

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence (where you have chaps like Spinoza saying things like "God is Nature").

I could mention this is a lay form (after I have thought about it a bit!), since it is on re-consideration a rather important point for the physicists (so thanks for the prompting!)

Elwyn, post 88,

"it seems to this researcher that your guide entry was provocative"

I think you are advising me that my guide entry mentioning the "Atheist-Agnostic-Theist" debate was probably what set me off on the wrong foot in the peer review.

I suspect you are right. We learn fom our mistakes.

Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response on the Kant question, P.

To me it is quite incomprehensible that the Reformers' rejection of medieval metaphysical accretions should be clssified as a rejection of "reason". Rather it is an application of humanist reason to a structure of unsupportable inventions whose only strength is that they are metaphysically speaking "not impossible". To put that in material terms, things discarded at the Reformation here in Ireland included the famous Talking Cross at Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, and the Baculus Iesu, a wooden staff given to St Patrick personally by Jesus. To call such a clean-up a "rejection of reason" is rather stretching a point, no?

It is surely petty point-scoring for the pope to claim that the Reformation was anti-rational. One can ask, if it was such a retrograde step, why it was followed by so prompt and thorough a Counter-reformation? The Catholic Church would hardly choose to restore those miraculous artifacts, had they not been destroyed?

And similarly in the case of Kant; merely placing a matter in the realm of "practical" rather than "pure" reason is not at all what is implied (to this reader) by the phrase "set thinking aside".

I don't disagree with you at all on the "silly" syncretic accretions. In any case I am not a fan discussing the divisions between Theist positions, I really hope we can get past that and focus on the huge commonality. On this issue if all we take from what Benedict XVI is that we need to ensure we do not minimize the issue of the immanence of God then I'll be happy. I don't think he would characterize the reformantion (post 2nd vatican council) as anti-rational anyway, just that Kants excellent work on the transcendent aspect was a brillant light, that put other aspects in shadow.

OK?

I have posted another version just now taking into account the latest comments, referencing Kant and Kierkegaard. Adding a reference towards the concluding remarks to ephasize they are non personal. I have tidied up a couple of typos. But I will need to look after the formating of course to make it consistent with the style guide (I have been kinda promised help for that!).

Well, God bless your perseverance! I'll have a re-read.

You are welcome as are any suggestions for changes, deletions, additions etc.

Where there is a will there is a way!

You make me laugh! "Will" and "The Way" are the two BIG things for a Theist to talk about

Here is your entry in GuideML. Copy the following, paste it into an "Edit Entry" box and preview it as GuideML (hit the relevant boxes below the edit box).

I have corrected a few bits of grammar and punctuation, and left out a sentence that seemed to say nothing.

One drawback: the A-numbers don't come out as links in the footnotes! I don't know whether they have disabled links in the footnotes, but it looks as though they have.



On September 12th 2006 a certain public figure went back to a university to give a speech. He was invited to make an address to “representatives of science” on the issue of his views on “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections”. He reminisced early on in the speech, causing polite laughter, about a critical comment from a colleague who said, “There was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God.” He went on to say that “even in the face of such skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question”. No doubt many of the representatives of science gathered in the lecture theatre settled down to listen, perhaps with skepticism themselves, to hear him out. It would be a “bookish” academic discourse they thought, something that would hardly be a “big affair”.

Maybe Pope Benedict XVI had similar thoughts about its expected reception as he gathered his notes and moved into the main part of his Regensburg University addressYou can find the text of the speech (in several languages) at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html. By all accounts he was surprised by the reaction to some opening remarks he made in his next paragraph, words he hoped would merely serve as a starting point for the thesis that violence and religion were not compatible, and that faith must be integrated with a respect for rationality and vice versa.

The purpose of this Entry is not to discuss the furor caused by the Pope’s remarks about the comment made by a certain “Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam”, but to look at the main theme of the speech that was on the topic of the integration of Faith and Reason, which seems to be unfortunately lost in the media chaos that ensued.


Where are we going?

Why is this important? Well consider this example: You are driving, with friends in the back seat. As you approach a crossroads, you ask for advice as to where to go. Friend A says turn left, friend B says right. And there seems to be no compromise possible from the argument that ensues. Maybe one is right and the other is wrong, you don’t know. You have three choices.

CHOOSE to go with one of the friends' advice, or

IGNORE them and carry on regardless through the junction going straight ahead, only making turns when they both agree, or

STOP the car and ask for someone that really knows the way (maybe bringing the friends along or not!).


You see when it comes to “Faith and/or Reason” for many it appears that there are JUST two competing and opposite ways at looking at meaning and truth in the worldTake a look at this Entry A731440 for more on this "Tension"..

It's important to understand these so as to be able to make our own personal judgment about what others say is meaningful and/or true. Clearly what is true for some is not for others. How we construct our picture of the world, truths and meaning is what we call our "worldview".

We can see "Truths" revealed to us through religious traditions or personal experience, and through this way of thinking make sense of the world and build a "Faith" based worldview. (“Turn Left”). Alternatively we can build a worldview that is based on rigorous rational and logical analysis and theory/model building backed up by scientific experiments that are predictable in their outcomes. Let us call this a "Reason" based worldview here. (“Turn Right”). For some this is entirely adequate, meaning to say their Reason based or Faith based worldview they consider complete needing no radical change in their perspective, all that they consider meaningful is best viewed from these perspectives they believe. We might for the sake of definition call these “Hard” positions. (And you might think it best to drive the “car” always taking one of your “Friends” advice at the exclusion of the other – this is the choice of many, and for them it may indeed be the best choice).

However many people though are uncomfortable with being asked to choose between these worldviews. They see value in both, maybe applying one approach for one part of their lives. and the alternative for other aspects. The choice for these folks is Reason AND Faith (albeit in separate areas of their lives). A significant step forward in this regard is the work on "Critical Rationalism”Sir Karl Raimund Popper initially and subsequently Professor Ian Barbour developed this system. More information on this can be found in A455924 on Critical Rationalism; it’s well worth a visit.. In this system it is proposed we can find our way by reasoning with BOTH Rational and Faith based modes. The integration of Reason with Faith based approaches is possible. All you need to do is apply Reason based thinking for those problems that it is best for and Faith based for those that are applicable to that “domain”. Though sometimes that’s easier to say than do.

This is not acceptable for some, as this "compartmentalization" is an uneasy compromise and they would prefer to have a single integrated worldview where all parts of their lives can be addressed consistently. This is because it not always easy to know which mode to apply in a given situation (i.e., if the “Car Friends” disagree, which Friend should you listen to when you have need to make a choice?). The choice for these folks is to look for an Integration of Faith and Reason (where it is hoped your Friends' contradictions simply cease).

There is a growing interest right now in building this synthesis of Reason and Faith based thinking into an integrated worldview. But you might be surprised that it’s far from a new, or a post-modernSee A99119 for more on Post-modernism. invention (post-modernists also hope to achieve this goal but in its extreme formulation they often regard all truths as equal; unfortunately you can’t drive your car both right and left at the same time!). Notwithstanding this “contribution” the goal of integration is something we should look at.


Reasoning about Faith

There are many traditional faiths of course and most of them claim Reason as a crucial part of their traditions. A particular common absorption or "syncretic” adoption was of the Greek Philosophical Reason based traditions of Plato and Aristotle, the so called the "Hellenization" of many Faith based worldviews, e.g.,

Judaism: Moses Ben Maimon introduced the Philosophical Reasoning of Aristotle.

Christianity: Augustine introduced Plato and Aquinas introduced Aristotle.

Islam: Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Idn Sina and Ibn Rushd introduced Plato and Aristotle.

And so on. To study more about these integrations just Google the Tradition (e.g., Christianity) with the Introducer (e.g., Augustine) and the Introduced (e.g., Plato) and you should get a lot of hits!


This syncretic process continued through the ages, for example in the philosophy of Immanuel KantFor Kant introducing the concept of "Transcendent" Reason, see A1029340. who examined aspects of Reason and Faith in a “transcendent” manner (being “beyond and above” the constraints of universe we live in). And Soren Kierkegaard, who as a founding father of the Existential movement that we shall discuss later (14), took Reason into Faith based traditions further still, to the point where a clear definition of the kinds and types of “leaps of faith” where given a systematic outline.

The central idea for theologians being confronted with the truth found by rationality and natural philosophy was that they could not be at odds with truth by Faith, contradiction being seen as a sign of error in one aspect or the other. The contribution of these Theologians was to start the process of ensuring the reconciliation of the truths of Reason and Faith and ensure any “metaphysical/physical” contradiction was resolved adequately (a kind of conflict resolution process). Many (though not all) Faith based traditions have by now worked hard enough on this over the centuries to now claim that their Theological basis is internally consistent with rationality. This is hotly disputed of course, and you can find the debates on many a blog.

Still the “conflict resolution” process continues as new truths are discovered about our reality. In some cases as we discover new or revise old scientific truths we find that they are consistent with a certain traditions faith based truths, that is often taken to be a positive “confirmation” to the traditions, and everyone is happy. However when things do not there tends to be a backlash from certain faith based traditions to challenge the new science. However challenges and contradictions need not be considered negative, they can be seen as promptings for the rationally arrived at truths to be “hardened” up. It only becomes a problem if overtime the faith based traditions fail to accept the new rationally “proven” truth once it has got to a position where denial is unreasonable (for example Evolutionary theory was initially considered a challenge to many faiths but now it is accepted by many. Though not all – and as such the “hardening” process continues. To see aspects of this take a look at the many Entries in h2g2 on this in the Evolution vs Creation areaA699573 This gives a mainstream Christian perspective, be sure to look at the others in this area..

This process of conflict resolution has been a hard one, particularly for certain individuals in less liberal periods of history. And there are many shameful examples where it has broken down to the point where you might think it impossible for there to be tolerance of each “sides” Truth and the resolution between them. But the fact that mankind has acted badly in the past is hardly a revelation. We must seek to do better now and going forward at very least.


Having Faith in Reason

What does it mean for something to be “Proven”? When do we know we have “Truth” and is it Objective (true for all) or Subjective (true for me)See A151525 for a perspective on “Truth” and A378254 for “Belief”.? On the face of it this sounds easy, but it’s not. The Philosopher Heidegger came up with the “Ultimate Question”This Question is: Why is there anything rather than nothing? This he referred to as The Question of the Meaning of Being. See A656787 for more detail. in which we are confronted with a point of view that leads us to question all systems of truth and belief. To get a sense of this without going into too much detail (check out the references if you feel the need!), consider: sometimes we can say some Truth is Objective in the sense that it is mostly true for us all, most of the time. For example "boiling an egg for 5 minutes will give you a hard boiled egg". There maybe some exceptions, but it’s mostly a good rule. However other truths, particularly "human truths" relating to our personal beliefs of

Beauty (e.g., “is this piece of abstract art beautiful?”)

Justice (e.g., “is this person lying?”) and

Goodness (e.g., “is this person being kind?”)


are more clearly subjective and harder to pin down. In other words whatever YOU think the answer to these questions are you cannot assume OTHERS will agree, they may argue with your Logic (“why is something this abstract related to your feelings?”), or how you did you get the Information its based on (“tell me what is the evidence for the lie?”), or even the Language definition of the words you use (“what does it mean to be kind?”).

Once we start to analyze deeply the problems we find intractable “knots” in this so called subject–object problem. In the past 100 years academics have to come to terms with certain limits of objectivity in principle. Their studies have concluded that our human language is subjective in that any personal language statement cannot be made objectiveWittgenstein’s study of language in the mid-20th century is a landmark of analytical philosophy; see A1024156.. There are similar problems that occur in physical measurement where the Quantum Theory of Physics describes fundamental uncertainty in measurement as being an unavoidable aspect of nature. We simply cannot pin down measurements with complete certainty, we are toldThe Quantum Theory of Physics was an amazing achievement in the early to mid-20th Century, breaking the old classical understanding of reality in a profound way; see A781823.. Even our mathematical foundations of logic are found to be lacking completenessGödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is one of Mathematical Logic's great paradoxes. See A781823 for a short and simple description.. This results in what is called the “Explanatory Gap”, where our very thought process itself may be insolvable to our rational mindThis is a non-edited h2g2 Entry: Explanatory Gap A926949..

Some argue this point. Not everyone believes these limits are unassailable roadblocks, for example see ObjectivismObjectivism is described in A455311.. In this controversial worldview the Object reality of the person at expense of others is taken as an article of Faith for the individual. Alternatively we have the worldview of ExistentialismExistentialism is described in A2961100.. In this system we are told that there is no absolute meaning or objective truth, and we have to face this reality and make the best of it. For some this is acceptable, and simply the way it is.Many nevertheless find the conclusions sufficiently disturbing for them to reject these systems as representing “truth and belief” at least as they see it. Many people want something that tolerates more meaning in their lives.



Truth and Tolerance


One resolution to get to Objective Truth in a world wrestling with the Subjective problems as discussed above is to accept that we must seek it from outside of the subjective systems we all exist in. That is to say we simply decide on some “axioms” (things we assert as True, Absolutely and Objectively) and see if the resulting statement of belief that are supported by the axiom are sufficiently free of contradictions with things we see in our best models of life, the universe and everything. If they do we can say these axioms are “very good”To get further insight on this approach have a look here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/.

For example in that branch of mathematics we call “Set Theory” mathematicians have built various different axiomatic principles that allow us to avoid some otherwise embarrassing contradictions that where found in the early days of so called naïve set theory. From these axioms we can build the foundations or principals of mathematics. Most folks don’t appreciate how hard it is to prove that 1+1=2 is TRUE and 1+1=3 is FALSESee A337303. Principia Mathematica was written by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, introducing Propositional Calculus, which Gödel proved was incomplete (see footnote 9 above). Nevertheless, hopefully you get the picture of how hard it is to describe the truth..

Doing this gets us started on a slippery slope, though. Once you start to build webs of axiomatic truth statements (that are like little “atoms” of a personal Faith-based system) to fill in this Explanatory Gap that we talked about earlier we get to a rather complex situation very quickly. Apart from understanding all the axioms we need for problems we have yet to uncover, we also have an issue about agreeing what common axiomatic set we must have to be able to communicate effectively. If this is a bad state of affairs in something as “simple” as arithmetic then in issues relating to human truths regarding standards for personal morality and ethics we really have a problem on our hands!

One solution that the Faith based folks can offer to the Reason based ones is a worldview that at least in the area of let us say ethics and morals alone is “pre-built”, something they say has stood the test of time and has evolved to be as close as we can to be Objectively True. Using the faith based system, Pope Benedict XVI was bold enough to saySee “Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.:

Our personal freedom consists not in gradually getting rid of moral law and norms of behavior but in perfecting them to universal objective truths, as best we are able to understand them.

We must bid farewell to the dream of absolute autonomy of Reason and its self-sufficiency. Human reason needs meaning to be "imported" from the Faith based traditions of mankind.

Because Reason by itself is limited it is a myth that a liberated world order of the future is possible where everything is good and just for all men. Such ideologies that promise otherwise ultimately fail to liberate us, rather they disappoint us and enslave us.


Does this make sense? Well in the context of the 20th century experience of Fascism, Marxism and Global Capitalism some might agree. Though it’s a contentious point that you will need to consider for yourself at the end of the day.

It is important to note that these statements come from one faith based system. Other faith based systems might come up with different perspectives. And its also for true that not all faith based perspectives need to be centered on the “Belief in God” proposition. Legitimate Faith based propositions are possible that are Humanist based for example. But the common aspect is they are based on Faith in some form of Objective Truth principles. By building effective Inter-Faith dialog we can come to form better understanding of these systems and look for what common principles we can all agree on to build a world free of some of its less attractive aspects. As long as you have a common grounding for this dialogue…

To get to Objective Truth we need to be Tolerant to be able to see the benefits of the reason based and faith based approaches.

Faith can support Reason by giving it meaning.

Reason can support Faith by giving it an internally consistent rationality.

We must seek resolution of conflicts in Faith and Reason, giving Reason priority where rational discourse is meaningful, and vice versa.

And violence in support of a Faith based tradition is irrational.


Broadly speaking this was the thesis of the Pope’s Regensburg Address. He ended by saying

Here I am reminded of something Socrates said …. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby.

The point has been around a long time, and it’s a relevant today as it was in Socrates time c 470 B.C.E.