MetaCatholic

Bob MacDonald responds to my earlier post on Dawkins and rationality (and also in a comment on that post). I’m not entirely sure I understand all of his comment. But at the heart of it is a reaction against what he sees as an over-strong emphasis on rationality. He says:

I am thinking that belief needs to be seen more as engagement than ‘rational’ - and I think none of us is exempt or incompetent whether we are very smart or (as are two of my children) seriously brain damaged.

I want to make some observations in response to this, all of which should be read together.

• In talking about faith being rational, I do not intend a Cartesian emphasis on the primacy of thought. As I note on my about page: “I am, because I am related to” and “I am. because I relate.” I regard relatedness as the most fundamental characteristic of existence. I see that both as a theological statement, and as a description of what it is to be born.
• Describing faith as rational does not imply that one has to have high powers of reason to believe. I do not exclude children or those with serious learning difficulties from faith. In our church we welcome them not only in the assembly, but also in receiving Holy Communion.
• But I want to ascribe a high value for the idea that believing is itself a rational act. I wish to affirm that one can give a reasonable account of faith. In a sense that account underpins engagement and relationship: it is reasonable to believe, among all the contradictory evidence, that ultimately reality is (or will be) good, and that living in trusting relationships and doing good are not things we do in vain. (and cf 1 Cor 15 on this)
• Theologically there is a long tradition that ascribes “being in the image of God” the sense of being a rational creature. I want to affirm what that tradition affirms (while recognising other exegetical and theological meanings for that phrase) and insist that rationality is a reflection of God’s greater rationality, which orders the universe so that it is susceptible of being understood.

Not only do I think it is harmful to apologetics to leave reason out of the equation, I think it is harmful to theology and human living. A certain reticence about grandiose claims for reason, and a post-modern humility that particular accounts of reason are cultural and not universal, must not, in my view, lead us to surrender the field. We may not be able to give a fully rational account of everything, because we cannot stand outside our cultural constructs, but we can affirm, in God, that the universe is indeed a rational one, and that an attitude of trust in that God is an act of reasonable faith.