Here is yet another page that sprung out of a recent conversation with a friend of mine. His name is Peter. He is a Christian. I've know him since 1992-or-93 and from my vantage point, he has always lived a life of humility, honesty and compassion toward others. When I was still a religious believer, we were friends and I considered him one of the most gentle, patient, kind, respectful and wise people I had ever met. Now that I am no longer a believer, I consider him to be one of the most gentle, patient, kind, respectful and wise people I have ever met. 

I still long to follow his lead in this life as an example of most of the things that are important to me. In quoting him here and in pointing the lethal weapon of critical thinking at his comments, I by no means wish to tarnish that image in my mind or anyone else's or advance anything other than a confrontation of ideas. 

Below are some of Peter's comments from a recent conversation (via e-mail of course) we were having about believers, people of faith, critical thinking and a scientific understanding of nature versus that which is handed to us through sacred Texts such as the Bible. 

I'll quote Peter first and then offer some comments. 

P: "I find it interesting that you seem to be limiting your blast to people of faith. I see the exact same level of lazy thinking in the average non-religious person who has never considered the tenets of Christianity, nor have ever questioned their own "secular" worldview. I'm not sure the problem has to do with people of faith vs. people of no faith, but rather has to do with a certain "philosophy of our age". The problem has to do with those both in the church and those with no particular religious beliefs, who believe that issues of faith and issues of reason should be separated."

Hmmm, "...a certain "philosophy of our age"" 
I recall hearing all about this kind of thing when I was still a believer (even back at Open Door [a very progressive and perhaps even "liberal" Christian Church in many ways). I'm genuinely curious to hear about what exactly people mean by this. Do they think there's some kind of big, Satan-lead conspiracy meant to hide "the truth" of God from people? Or is it the one where non-religious people are persecuting the religious folks? Or just simply the case that the non-religious people are morally lazy and don't want to do the work of actually giving a damn about each other and so they don't want to give any credit to religious traditions for fear of having to change their worldviews in favor of some of the principles and values of these religious traditions? Perhaps there are thousands of other scenarios I've heard of. I don't see how any of them have anything to do with where I'm at though. 

I guess he does explain it a bit when he says, 

P: "The problem has to do with those both in the church and those with no particular religious beliefs, who believe that issues of faith and issues of reason should be separated.". 

That kind of statement seems to only be revealing his own philosophy though, not the philosophy of any particular "age". To say that "issues of faith and issues of reason should be separated" is not necessarily a "belief". Granted, using the word "should" actually puts that statement close to the edge if not out of the realm of what I would be comfortable stating. However, is not the idea that reason and faith are not compatible when it comes to discussing the nature and history of the world in which we actually live a logical, rational and even most likely the most reasonable way of addressing the issue? Even for one that used to have faith, I can look back and acknowledge where I was in error when it comes to these things. 

For instance, the natural history of this world either went like this, or it went like that. Whichever way it really progressed, one thing is for certain, it will never be revealed to us through faith because all faith does is gamble on an unverifiable, static concept with little or no research of is own, whereas reason allows for space to search and dig and study to find out the truth from that which is actually available here and now right under our feet. 

The way I understand it from personal experience and from looking at the world of believers all around me, faith seems to either lock one down to a particular view point or cuts one off from even developing a viewpoint at all. Either way it seems to make scientific learning unwelcome or at least unnecessary (we've already got it all figured out; "It is written") and has no place for even thinking rationally about and asking the question which matters most; "Is faith it self even reasonable?" This isn't even about arguing about which religion or metaphysical belief system to have faith in, but about whether or not faith is even a reasonable building block to use in constructing one's world view in the first place. 

If that is the philosophy of any particular age, it's news to me. I certainly have not arrived at the understanding of the nature of thinking and how it is different from believing by listening to the stories of others and placing my future in their hands. I've thought long and hard about these things. I continue to think about them. I am always open-minded, willing to reconsider even something about which I've made a firm conclusion. 

I don't have any faith in anything. This allows me to be flexible and keeps me from the kind of disappointment and trauma I went through as a child when I found out that there really is no Santa Claus. In the face of a more logical, rational and reasonable explanation of the way things are, where is the use for faith? Faith is not for things that can be known for sure, but for that realm of suggested, unverifiable things. Do we have any more logical reason for gambling on one suggested, unverifiable thing than any other?  

So, should faith and reason be separated? No, I don't think so at all. In fact, I wish for nothing more than to introduce more reason into the lives of "people of faith". Perhaps they can use it in their quest for Truth. This seems more reasonable to me than not. What do you think? 
 [Entry added 20031208_1851]