[quote=Benedictus]I suspect that for most people, religion is a bit of an accident of birth. Most people belong to a particular religion because they were raised in that religion. Yes, there are converts, but even then, most of them already believed in something (e.g. God, Jesus, etc.) before they reasoned found a new religion. A lot of them found a community they liked and just accepted the community’s beliefs.
Do you have any research which supports your believe about “most people”? That would help give us the context.
[quote=Benedictus]Very few people arrived at the existence of God through reason alone.
It’s been a long time since I read it, but what about Saint Bonaventure, The Mind’s Road to God?
what Kant was to say of the relationship between concepts and precepts, the Christian could have said of that between faith and reason, or religion and philosophy: faith without reason is blind, reason without faith empty… The difficulty with the extremists who maintained that either one or the other faculty was sufficient was that faith and reason were both supposed to assert something.
Whether you believed by faith or by reason, you believed in ideas which presumably made sense, could be stated in words, could be true or false. If you believed in one of these truths by faith, without reason, you were in the position of a man who had no knowledge of what he was believing nor why, nor even whether there was any good reason for believing in it rather than its contradictory.
It was all very well for a man like Tertullian to maintain that there was more glory in believing something irrational–inept–than in believing something demonstrably true.
Most Christian philosophers were anxious to put a sound rational underpinning beneath their beliefs… [size=2]Similarly, if you had only rational knowledge, you were like a blind man who might be convinced that there were such things as colors, analogous to sounds and odors, but who had no direct acquaintance with them; or again like a man who had read an eloquent description of a great painting, but who had never seen it.[/size]
[size=2]The student who has no acquaintance with the philosophy of Saint Bonaventura can do no better than to begin with the Itinerarium.[/size]
I don’t have a link for Itinerarium yet. And I have a lot to do today. So if someone else can find the link and post it here, that would be very helpful. Thank you.
The article I have already linked to is very good, but be careful not to proof-text it because it presents many conflicting points of view. Bonaventure’s MR2G is presented in full.
[quote=Benedictus]Very few people arrived at the conclusion that Catholicism is the one and only correct religion through reason alone (I’m not sure the Church even says that is possible). My point is that most people didn’t “reason” themselves into their religious beliefs.
Why do you believe this? There are two poles to science: observational science and theoretical science. Let’s assume as Paul did that faith is described in Hebrews 11:1. That would make it theoretical science.
[quote=Benedictus]So it follows that if Dawkins can’t be reasoned out of his beliefs that he didn’t reason himself into, the same can be said for many believers.
But is your first premise true?
[quote=Benedictus]However, all of the above begs the question: is it unreasonable to believe in something without using reason to determine what you should believe?
Yes, it is.
[quote=Ani Ibi]How much of what we profess to believe is the result of reason and how much of what we profess to believe is the result of unexamined emotion?
[quote=Benedictus]To the former: I don’t know. To the latter: a lot.
So the question is: If this is the Age of Unreason and if philosophy is to speak to us in times such as these, then what forms must philosophy take?