Tag Archive for: Fideismo

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte III

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte III

By Xavier Gonzalez

Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.

Part II: The story of Christians with reasonable faith.

Promoters of Reasonable Faith

As we saw earlier, the first Christians were not fideists, and that is in total contradiction with the fideists and certain atheists who claim that faith is blind and irrational, and that there is a contradiction between faith and reason, but would those Christians who have some academic specialization say the same? Did those who tried to find out where their faith is based think the same, as did the apologists of the second century? Or did they have (and do they have) good reasons to think that the Christian faith is really a reasonable faith?

We will quote certain statements from different academics who follow this line of thought:

 Faith is indeed the response to evidence, not a celebration of the absence of evidence.

—John Lennox

Reason is the left hand of our soul, faith is the right.

—John Donne

Reason and faith are two banks of the same river.

—Domenico Cieri Estrada

Real Faith is Not Blind, It is Based on Evidence.

—Rice Brooks

The Christian Faith requires its members to know their beliefs for themselves. Being a Christian means feeling responsible for one’s own beliefs and living them in a conscious and intelligent way.

—Alfonso Ropero

In Scripture, faith involves putting our trust in what we have reason to believe. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the darkness. In a biblical perspective, faith and reason cooperate with each other. They are not inherently hostile.

—JP Moreland

Thus, faith and thought go hand in hand, and it is impossible to believe without thinking. BELIEVING IS ALSO THINKING!

—John Stott

The Christian faith is, in its essence, the act of thinking.

—John Stott

The Bible never states that we should take a leap in the dark. Faith is not blind, in the sense of being arbitrary, eccentric, or a mere expression of human wish. If so, why does the author of Hebrews say that faith is the “conviction of things not seen”?

—RC Sproul

Few are those who leave their intellectual comfort to satisfy these uncertainties, but those who set out in search of evidence will not be disappointed, because the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith in facts, facts that can be subjected to the judgment of reason.

—Claudio Garrido

My faith is Reasonable, Christianity is reasonable and based on History.

—Chris Du Pond

If a rational God has created us as rational beings with the loving intention of having communion with him, then we must confidently expect to come to know something of his existence and nature.

—Thomas V. Morris

Christian belief is justified in the same way that belief in atomic theory is justified: through good arguments and evidence.

—Cameron Bertuzzi

Faith does not show us God rationally, but it shows him to us reasonably.

—Francisco Lacueva

Everyone who believes, thinks. Because faith, if what is believed is not thought, is null.

—Augustine of Hippo

Faith in Christianity is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith, in the Christian sense, goes beyond what is reasonable, but it does not go against reason.

—Paul Little

Our trust in Christ is not based on blind emotion, but on the intellectual evaluation of the evidence that has convinced us of the truth of Christianity and given rise to a reasonable faith.

—Tricia Scribner

To renounce reason is to renounce religion; reason and religion walk hand in hand, every irrational religion is a false religion.

—John Wesley

It is not that we are trying to trick the opinion of fideists or atheists with a long list, these are simply a few to name and that also goes for fideists and atheists, phrases that would perhaps be capable of knocking anyone’s face down.

Now, the promoters of reasonable faith really think that there is a balance or compatibility between what is faith and reason, so for my brothers in Christ who have a Fideistic thought I say: Study!

Question your beliefs if necessary, but always looking for answers and justification of those beliefs if they are true or not. Do not stay like vagabonds in a box without seeking answers or help like a child who no longer goes out to the playground for fear of getting hurt, the only advice I give you is from the Apostle Paul himself: “But test everything; hold on to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thess 5:21-22) and “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking, but be children in malice, but be mature in your thinking.” (1 Cor 14:20).

And for the not-so-friendly atheists (this can also include agnostics) who still accuse Christians of being brainless, if you are going to question the Christian faith… I appreciate it! This encourages committed Christians to study the faith further and seek better answers.

But to be frank, if they are going to be skeptical even of the evidence that one puts on the table and do not deign to carefully analyze what is presented, then it can be said that skeptics of this style have a rather naive and superstitious Faith , what I mean is, questioning everything without having good reasons for why to sustain such skepticism, that does not indicate that atheism is a reasonably and intellectually satisfactory position, it is only intellectual, rational laziness and even a comfortable way to take refuge in one’s own worldview, as intellectually lazy Christians also do.

Reasonable Faith (Biblically)

We may have described a bit of history and respectable promoters of a rational faith, but to finish this writing, we must go to the Bible, since atheists as fideists try to justify the irrationality of Christianity and what better way than using the very same sacred book that Christians use or believe respectively.

Let’s just see, are atheists right in saying that the Bible allows for blind faith? Do John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7 and Hebrews 11:1 really assert that Christian faith is blind? We will analyze these and other quotes with great care and detail.

In this part of the writing we will first analyze the verses that assert that “faith” itself (or that it seems) is blind, we will use the classic Reina Valera of 60 :

John 20:29

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

2 Corinthians 5:7

(because we live by faith, not by sight)

Hebrews 11:1

And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Before we go into depth about the verses themselves, let’s first see what the word “Faith” really means in Greek, this word in its original translation is pronounced πιστός (pistos or pistis) this word in the Greek sense is used in 2 ways, which are active and passive, in the active mode it means that it is confident and in the passive mode it means that it is faithful, so this word in Greek is not synonymous with blindness but with trust or fidelity, the term first of all is firm persuasion, conviction based on what is heard, to give an example, it is like the doctor who diagnoses the patient, the doctor tells his patient the disease he has and the cure for that disease, and the only option the patient has is to trust the word of his doctor or not, hence the trust in someone. This is where the apologists base themselves on 1 Peter 3 15, to make a reasoned defense .

Now that it is clear what “Faith” really is, let us analyze the verses:

First to get a clarification of why Jesus said that, let’s go to the previous verses, John 20:24-29

24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus appeared.

25 Therefore the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

26 And after eight days his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you .

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and put your hand here and put it into my side; and do not be unbelieving but believing.”

28 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Before let’s see certain conditions that happen here, first when Jesus appeared to the other disciples Thomas was not with them, then it happens that when the disciples met again with Thomas, he did not believe them, but wait a moment, how many people were there when Jesus appeared to them resurrected bodily before meeting with Thomas? Well, in Luke 24:13 it gives us 2 testimonies that they saw Jesus and the other appearance that the disciples had was in John 20:19, the verse does not tell us how many people were gathered, but here I would speculate that it was with almost all the disciples, because if they hid for fear of the Jews, I imagine that they agreed to have a hiding place so that the Jews would not catch them, although it was the right place and time for Jesus to appear to them. Now let’s see, whether it was the course of days or the week in which Jesus appeared to them (except for Thomas, of course), Thomas still had good justifiable evidence to believe, and it was the testimony of the other disciples, although Jesus always appeared to Thomas, we see 2 particular things, (1) that the faith that Jesus demanded from the apostles did not end up being a blind faith and (2) that that faith does have good justification for its evidence, but our question here is why did Jesus say that? And our answer is that:

The beatitude Jesus pronounced is not comparative in itself, that is, he does not say that “more” blessed are those who believe without seeing, although this might be implied. He accepted and approved Thomas’ faith by sight as true, but he omits to say that he is blessed. Thomas had the opportunity to believe in the resurrection based on the testimony of his companions, without visual evidence, and he did not take advantage of it. Jesus was apparently looking ahead to when his future disciples would have to believe without being able to see and he steps forward to pronounce a blessing on them. Culpepper observes that throughout the Gospel, John has discussed the relationship between seeing and believing, presenting a series of signs, but encouraging readers to a faith that is not based on signs.

So, in simple words, even if Jesus does not appear to us bodily resurrected every day, it is not a plus that our belief is not really well justified.

Now let’s move on to the next verse, which is 2 Corinthians 5:7. This quote tells us in a very emphatic way that “Faith” is “blind,” but we must take both the verses before this one and those that follow it in order to have an adequate context of the verse, and not juggle the same verse and end up deducing false conclusions. Now let’s see what the verses before and after 5:7 tell us.

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tabernacle, were destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 And thus we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly habitation,

3 For even though we are unclothed, we will not be found naked.

4 For we who are still in this tent groan with anguish, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

5 And he who destined us for this very thing is God, who gave us the Spirit as a guarantee.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, while present in the body, we are absent from the Lord.

7 ( because we live by faith, not by sight);

8 But we are confident, although we prefer to leave the body and be with the Lord.

As we read in these verses, it indicates a faith directed toward another goal or purpose, which is not obviously a faith without evidence, but a faith in a promise. To put it in our perspective, it is like when a Father promises his son that he will give him a toy, and the child trusts and hopes in the promise that his Father made him. So what Paul does is contrast our faith that we will be resurrected and have a home in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the faith that he speaks of here is toward a promise that we still await. Verse 7 with the passages that come from it refers to the fact that life is a journey, or a pilgrimage, and that the Christian is traveling to another country. The sense here is that we conduct ourselves in our course of life with reference to things that are not seen, and not with reference to things that are seen. Sometimes the people of this world strive for those objects that they have not seen, without any promise or assurance that they will obtain them. The inability to grant them has been promised to them; No one has assured them that their lives will be lengthened in order to obtain them. In a moment they may be cut off and all their plans frustrated; or they may be utterly disappointed and all their plans fail; or if they do obtain the object, it may be unsatisfactory and may not give such pleasure as they had anticipated. But not so the Christian. He has:

(1) The promise of life.

(2) He is assured that sudden death cannot deprive him of it. He immediately brings it to the object of persecution, not away from him.

(3) You are assured that when it is obtained, it will not displease, satiate, or deteriorate, but will fulfill all the expectations of the soul and will be eternal.

Thus, the verse quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:7 contextualizing its verses, does not exactly refer to an incompatibility between “faith and reason” it simply refers to “faith and promise”; therefore, given what is understood in this verse, let us go to the next one.

Hebrews 11:1

And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Here we discover the essential characteristics of faith from the author’s point of view. Faith has to do with things to come (hoped for) and things invisible (unseen). The RSV translation (the constancy of things hoped for) puts the emphasis on faith as an expression of our confidence in God’s promises. However, it is also possible to translate “faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for” or “faith gives substance to our hopes.” Such a translation suggests that things hoped for become real and have substance through the exercise of faith.

Now given the context of the verse, it is not a reference where it can be used to denote that faith is blind in itself, because if one reads the verses that follow we see certain characters who believed in what God told them, one could say that rather the faith that is referred to in this verse is in itself a fidelity to God, a fidelity to his promises; although something is quite clear, that when one reads the following verses and the faith that these characters had, it did not turn out to be a “blind faith” either, thus, faith is always accompanied by evidence, as my friend Anselm of Canterbury would say “I believe in order to understand and I understand in order to believe.”

Now that the verses have been clarified, we must touch on an important point, and that is, how do we come to know that a Faith is blind in itself? And here is the crucial point, for a faith to be blind, its very content must be false. What do I mean by this? That the content of the faith, where the heart of the belief is found, cannot justify or sustain what it declares about itself, and here we are going to touch on the verse 1 Corinthians 15:14 and 17.

12 If then it is preached that Christ was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either;

14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is also in vain.

15 And we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we testify that God raised up the Messiah; whom he did not raise, if it is true that the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins,

18 and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

Now, given as we read well in these verses, Paul denotes in a very emphatic way 2 things, (1) that the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection and (2) recognizes that for the Christian faith to be blind the resurrection of Christ could never have occurred, hence the implications that he himself mentions, now if this is so, then this is where the atheist must attack to demonstrate that the Christian faith is blind, not starting from how the world was created or otherwise, thus, the Christian faith rests on 2 propositions that make the Christian faith true and reasonable, the first in the own statements that Jesus made of himself for all who believe in him and in the second that his resurrection is the basis or solid confirmation of all his statements.

Now, to give an analogy, imagine that a king declares war on a nation and motivates his army saying that he will win the war, here we see 2 propositions where the army puts its faith in its King, which are (1) that the guarantee that they will win the war is based on the King’s declaration and (2) that the event occurs for that declaration to be true, but if the opposite happens then the army gave their lives for nothing and the faith they had towards the king ended up being in vain, it is so in the Christian faith if what Jesus Christ said about himself after his death was not fulfilled, then I have no reasons to be a Christian I would even dare to say that Christianity would cease to exist, in fact in Acts 5:34-39 a Pharisee Gamaliel recognized that although what these men preach is a lie, there will come a point when it will disappear, but if what these men preach is true, if the same statements of Jesus came true after his death, then even maintaining this FAITH IS REASONABLE.

That is why we can consider that Faith rests on a Faith founded on truth, and it can be demonstrated that it is true and that anyone can embrace that truth, with the mind and with the heart .

 

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

/by
¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte II

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte II

By Xavier Gonzalez

Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.

Reasonable Faith, Historical?

This section is not a commercial for the ministry of the popular American philosopher William Craig. It is intended to investigate the history of the early church, that is, have the first Christians always been irrational and anti-intellectual? Did they embrace any idea of ​​fideism? Did they avoid the objections that were put to them? Or is it the opposite?

Well, for this section we will try to answer these questions and others that may come to mind, but our short answer to these questions and others is:

NO

The early church like the church fathers always had a reasonable faith!

And to demonstrate this, we are going to defend two theses: the first is that the first Christians really did think about what respected their faith and the second is that God does not want ignorant or anti-intellectual followers.

Going back to the beginnings of Christianity, the early Christians were generally known for worshipping God [1] and not for venturing to resolve the great philosophical and doctrinal dilemmas of their time.

We can say that Christianity in its beginnings was a religion that was concerned with the worship of God and those who cared about helping others, however, at first Christians did not focus on answering the question of the origin and value of the world as something to be resolved, nor as a doctrine that they should defend.

Yet, strange as it may seem, even the first Christians did not consider an explanation of the origin and functioning of our world to be important. For them, creation was so important in their worship, because in some way it praised God the Creator, something like hymns or quotes in the Psalms.

Like the ancient Hebrews, Christians came to think of the same God who was their redeemer as the creator of all things. That is, they claimed that the God they worshipped was the same God to whom they entrusted their salvation . By then, the Christian doctrine of creation came from the experience of worship, not from an intellectual exercise.

The conviction in Christian worship carried with it certain guidelines towards the world, how to live in it. In the pagan and cloying world where the church was located, it was the cradle of the union of Judaism and Christianity, an action planned towards God’s saving purpose.

The doctrine of creation was not important as an explanation of the origin of the world, but rather as the foundation for life in the world and as a neat expression of faith, which the church celebrated and shared in its worship.

The early Christians had pagan culture as their neighbors, and this led them to think and reason, as well as to objections outside the ranks of Christianity. Christian leaders of that time felt compelled to think and write about creation for two reasons:

First, there was always the danger that pagan cultural views on the nature and value of the world would creep into the life of the church. This would have undermined Christian obedience in the present world, while calling into question faith in the creator and redeemer God whom the church worshipped.

Secondly, it became necessary to show society in general that what the Church celebrated in its worship, nor the way in which Christians viewed the physical world, was not irrational.

Otherwise, Jesus and faith in him would have been a source of ridicule and mockery. It was in response to this double challenge that Christians developed the doctrine of creation. A doctrine—again—that they shared with the people of Israel. That is why the official doctrine of creation was developed in response to the challenges of opposing opinions.

And with that ideal in mind, some of the first Christian theologians, or “second-century apologists,” set about seeking points of contact (or common ground) between the teachings of the Church and the opinions and most respected traditions of the surrounding Hellenistic culture.

This may come as a surprise, but it was very important to remove all obstacles from the path of unbelievers to faith. In addition, Christians had to combat many of the rumors and accusations that circulated about the supposedly “perverse” practices of their new cult [2]

Despite the struggles, not everything was bad…

The task had been greatly simplified for the benefit of Christians, thanks to the good work of a number of thinkers and philosophers of that time. They did not see the world as if it were a cruel battlefield between gods, but instead tried to explain the world in a coherent and rational way. However, Christians would take these tools with a grain of salt, as they rejected, accepted or modified the theses.

This allowed the Neonate [3] of the church to present the Christian doctrine of creation for one God in such a way that the Hellenistic world and its intellectual class could understand and respect the formulation of the creation of the world. This would answer important questions for the new religion, difficult questions such as, How is God dependent on the different places and times where people have not heard about Jesus Christ? To deny such activity would be a dagger in the heart of creation and its redemption. Therefore, Christians needed to consider the origin as the value of cultures that did not know about Jesus Christ in order to answer such questions.

But still, Christians had some difficulties in communicating the gospel to people from a different or totally different cultural background, after all, many of those cultural backgrounds differ massively from Christian doctrine.

And if we talk about the most cultured people of that time… It was difficult to converse with clever citizens who were proud of the achievements of their civilization and of their philosophers. This raised the obstacle that it would be necessary to suggest that they reject all this, or was there some way in which the Christian understanding of the world, creation and history could interpret, evaluate, accept or transform some of the most valuable achievements of civilization? Was the Christian message so radically new as to tear out such roots? To give a frivolous yes would be like falling into the Marcionism that the Church of the second and third centuries fought so hard, leaving individuals naked in their culture to embrace Christianity…

Another difficulty for the expansion of the gospel was the Roman persecution, apart from the accusations, let us see for example the relations of the Roman emperor, Trajan , with the Christians, in this case the response given to Pliny the Younger :

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting through the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down a general rule to serve as a sort of fixed standard. They should not be sought; if they are denounced and proven guilty, they should be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it—that is, by worshipping our gods—even though he was under suspicion in the past, should obtain forgiveness by repentance. But anonymously published accusations should have no place in any judicial proceedings. To do so is at once a dangerous sort of precedent and would not be in keeping with the spirit of our times. [4]

Adding these negatives, Christianity had it difficult at that time, this pressure led them to inquire about the faith and the culture that surrounded them, for them to use the following instrument, The doctrine of the Logos .

In the philosophical tradition it was customary to refer to a Being who was above all others and to whom all others owed their existence. Some Platonists thought that reality was the product of a series of emanations from that first being, the One . Christians soon realized the need to reject such ideas, because they led to pantheism and, therefore, to idolatry. Despite these stains, the idea that there was only one being, above all others, coincided with Christianity and this was very attractive to Christians who were trying to refute the polytheistic ideas of pagan culture.

That tradition had been reflecting on the perfections of this First and Supreme Being since the time of Parmenides of Elea (6th century BC), one of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Parmenides, and his long tradition of followers, had reached a certain consensus about those perfections. And as Parmenides, and most of the Platonic tradition, had understood them, Christian theologians adopted those perfections with slight changes. In this way they sought to show that their faith was not as irrational as some claimed and that, far from being atheistic innovators, the Christian faith was actually the culmination of the best of classical philosophy. For these perfections have become part of the Christian heritage when speaking and thinking about God. [5]

In short, the first Christians, moved by their worship, persecution and pressure, took on the task of presenting their faith as a reasonable faith.

Next part, meet the promoters of Reasonable Faith.

References

[1] Let us consider, for example, the satire made by the second-century Greek satyr , Lucian of Samosata , when he speaks of Christians in his work, The Death of Peregrine :

11. It was then that he learned of the wonderful tradition of the Christians, through association with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And – how else could it be? – in an instant he made everyone look like children, for he was a prophet, a cult leader, a synagogue chief, all of that, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they worshipped him as a god , made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him up as a protector, next to that other, to be sure, to those who still worship , the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

13. Indeed, people came even from the cities of Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero . They show incredible speed whenever such public action is taken; for in a short time they squander their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them on account of his imprisonment, and he did not seek not a little of the proceeds of it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, in the first place, that they will be immortal and live for ever, consequently, whereof they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Moreover, their first lawgiver convinced them that they are all brothers among themselves after they have transgressed once, for all in denying the Greek gods and in worshipping that crucified sophist and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definitive proof. So if any charlatan and swindler, capable of taking advantage of opportunities, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing it on the simple people….

-Lucian of Samosata, The Pilgrim’s Pass, 11 and 13.

[2] Nero’s slander towards Christians for the fire in Rome:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/historia/grandes-reportajes/neron-y-el-incendio-de-roma_6822

[3] Newborn.

[4] As you can see, it is not a witch hunt, but the fruits of rumors and heavy slander that fell on Christians in the Roman Empire are undeniable:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

[5] Paraphrase, Brief History of Doctrines , Justo L. Gonzalez, pp. 47-58)

 

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

/by
¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte I

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte I

Por Xavier González

No les ha pasado que cuando están debatiendo con un ateo e intentas dar sus mejores argumentos, un hermano en Cristo o un desconocido que se meten en la discusión y comienza a dar sus argumentos. Pero cuando te das cuenta es pura tontería lo que proponen, dicen cosas como “La filosofía va en contra de las escrituras” o “Jesús no vino a discutir”.

Bueno, me ha pasado y debo de decir que a veces me provoca darles un cabezazo para que no vuelvan a argumentar tantas tonterías…

En éste escrito vamos a tratar un tema que tal vez muchos cristianos desconozcan o alguna vez han oído, pero no han profundizado en él. Este artículo fue escrito con la intensión de corregir a ciertos hermanos en la fe que, por alguna razón en sus falsas o descuidadas congregaciones, se les ha enseñado que la Fe y la Razón no se juntan o que “no son compatibles”, en pocas palabras, Fideísmo.

Irónicamente, esto también lo “predican” la gran mayoría de ateos (Principalmente los Nuevos Ateos), pero vamos a demostrar que esto es falso y que realmente tanto en la historia de la iglesia como en la misma biblia nos dan razones suficientes para concluir que la Razón y la Fe son compatibles.

Definición

Antes de profundizar en el tema, creo que es importante dar una definición apropiada a lo que el Fideísmo es realmente:

  • «Sistema de pensamiento y de interpretación de los valores y hechos religiosos mediante el cual se da la primací­a absoluta la fe con menosprecio de los otros rasgos que apoyan las creencias, la razón, la tradición, la autoridad.

En general el fideí­smo roza el misticismo exagerado de quien, con motivos y actitudes afectivas más que racionales, deposita una confianza ciega en lo que se cree ser revelación divina. Sin embargo, sabemos que Dios ha hecho al hombre libre para creer y desea que también reflexione sobre su fe».

  • «Error que dice que la fe es la única fuente del conocimiento de Dios; la razón no lo puede conocer».
  • «El fideísmo es cualquiera de los varios sistemas de creencias que sostienen, sobre variados argumentos, que la razón es irrelevante a la fe religiosa. De acuerdo a algunas versiones de fideísmo, la razón es la antítesis de la fe».

De hecho, Alvin Plantinga define el fideísmo como “la exclusiva o básica dependencia sobre la fe sola, acompañada por un consecuente menosprecio de la razón y utilizada especialmente en la persecución de una verdad filosófica y religiosa”.

Con estas definiciones, se nos da a entender que simplemente la Fe de cualquier creencia (sobre toda la cristiana) es ciega e irracional. Pero antes de desmontar eso, vayamos por unos breves antecedentes históricos.

Historia del Fideísmo

Para eso, debemos viajar a la historia de la teologí­a católica, el fideísmo como un movimiento de pensamiento se desarrolló en Francia a mediados del siglo XIX:

Este movimiento nació para ser antítesis hacia racionalismo y el liberalismo del siglo pasado y sus principales representantes suelen enlistarse a el abate Bautain (1867), A. Grahy (1872). A. Bonnettv (1879), fundador de los Annales de pí­lilosophie chrétienne, Bonald (1840) como Lamennais (1854).

La principal caracterí­stica del movimiento fue una crí­tica cerrada contra la razón humana convertida por los enciclopedistas en el criterio único de verdad, en favor de una exaltación exagerada de la fe, fundamento de sí­ misma y capaz de reconocer la verdad de la revelación sin ninguna necesidad de signos exteriores o de motivos de credibilidad.

Aunque las desviaciones del fideí­smo fueron condenadas varias veces por el Magisterio, sobre todo con Gregorio XVI (DS 2751-2756), con pí­o IX en la encí­clica Qui pluribus de 1846 (DS 2778-2780) y finalmente por el concilio Vaticano I, -donde se reconoció expresamente la posibilidad de conocer a Dios “con la luz natural de la razón humanan (DS 3004; DS 3008-3009), todaví­a hoy siguen estando presentes ciertas formas larvadas de esta actitud en muchos católicos (como protestantes), que no conceden ninguna importancia a los problemas de credibilidad de la revelación.[1]

Por otro lado:

…estas fórmulas sistemáticas de fideísmo, nos encontramos a través de toda la historia de la filosofía desde la época de los sofistas hasta la actualidad una actitud fideísta de la mente, que se volvió más o menos conspicua en diferentes períodos. El fideísmo debe su origen a la desconfianza en la razón humana, y la secuencia lógica de esta actitud es el escepticismo. Es para escapar de esta conclusión que algunos filósofos, aceptando como principio la impotencia de la razón, han hecho hincapié en la necesidad de la creencia por parte de la naturaleza humana, ya sea afirmando la primacía de la fe sobre la razón o, de otro modo, afirmando una separación radical entre la razón y la creencia, es decir, entre la ciencia y la filosofía por un lado y la religión por el otro.

Tal es la posición adoptada por Kant, cuando distingue entre la razón pura, confinada a la subjetividad, y la razón práctica, que sola es capaz de ponernos por un acto de fe en relación con la realidad objetiva. También es una actitud fideísta que es la ocasión del agnosticismo, positivismo, pragmatismo y otras formas modernas de anti-intelectualismo

No es de sorprender, por lo tanto, que la Iglesia haya condenado tales doctrinas. En 1348, la Santa Sede proscribió ciertas proposiciones fideístas de Nicholas d´Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10ma. ed., núms. 553-570). En sus dos encíclicas, una en septiembre de 1832 y la otra en julio de 1834, el Papa Gregorio XVI condenó las ideas políticas y filosóficas de Lamenais. El 8 de septiembre de 1840 se le requirió a Bautain que suscribiera varias proposiciones directamente opuestas al fideísmo, la primera y la quinta de las cuales leen como sigue:

“”La razón humana es capaz de probar con certeza la existencia de Dios; la fe, un don celestial, es posterior a la revelación, y por lo tanto no se puede utilizar adecuadamente contra el ateo para probar la existencia de Dios “; y “El uso de la razón precede a la fe y, con la ayuda de la revelación y de la gracia, conduce a ella.” Y, finalmente, el Concilio Vaticano I enseña como un dogma de la fe católica que “un verdadero Dios y Señor puede ser conocido con certeza por la luz natural de la razón humana por medio de las cosas creadas”.[2]

Es bastante evidente que el despreciar las enseñanzas de los sabios, los descubrimientos científicos del pasado, y la voz de común acuerdo sería condenarnos a una infancia perpetua en el conocimiento, hacer imposible cualquier avance en la ciencia, ignorar el carácter social del hombre y hacer la vida humana intolerable: pero, por otro lado, es un error hacer de estos elementos el criterio supremo de la verdad, ya que son sólo reglas particulares de certeza, cuya validez está cimentada sobre una norma más fundamental. En efecto, es cierto que la certeza moral difiere de la matemática, pero la diferencia no reside en la firmeza o la validez de la certeza que ofrece, sino en el proceso utilizado y las disposiciones requeridas por la naturaleza de las verdades con las que tratan respectivamente.[3]

Promotores del Fideísmo

En la actualidad todavía hay ciertos cristianos siguen con este pensamiento irracional y que para nada concuerda ni con la historia de la iglesia primitiva ni con la misma biblia, de hecho, vamos a citar a ciertas personas que promulgan esto, no obstante, hasta un reformador se une a esta penosa lista:

«Si quieres moverte en lo sobrenatural tienes que dejar a un lado la razón»

—Guillermo Maldonado.

 «No te pierdas en medio de tanto conocimiento de la Palabra. ¡Cree! Eso es lo importante.»

—Cash Luna.

«No Seas un Cristiano Razonable»

—Otoniel Font.

«Los hechos pueden decirte una cosa. Pero, Dios no está limitado por los hechos. Elige la fe a pesar de los hechos.»

—Joel Osteen.

Decepcionante… ¿Verdad? Y como pueden ver, en general son los predicadores de un evangelio a lo “pare de sufrir” o el evangelio de la prosperidad los que predican estas ideas.

Ahora bien, esta pequeña lista no trata de ser exhaustiva y tampoco trata de exponer un remanente del anti-intelectualismo en el protestantismo. Pues el catolicismo, por lo menos en el área popular también existe este tipo de ideas, así que, si es de una denominación u otra, es irrelevante, lo que nos importa discutir es el problema del fideísmo.

Por otro lado, los promotores y defensores del Ateísmo y principalmente del Nuevo Ateísmo, aplaudirían y se levantarían de sus sillas de lo más felices por escuchar estas palabras, de hecho, hasta comparten dichos pensamientos, aquí algunas citas:

«La fe es la gran excusa, la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar las pruebas. La fe es creencia a pesar, incluso tal vez por la falta de evidencia».[4]

—Richard Dawkins.

«La fe es la rendición de la mente; es la rendición de la razón, es la rendición de lo único que nos diferencia de otros mamíferos».[5]

—Christopher Hitchens.

«La fe generalmente no es más que el permiso que las personas religiosas se dan mutuamente para creer las cosas fuertemente sin evidencia».[6]

—Sam Harris.

Debo de decir que, si un cristiano que va en esta línea de pensamiento (aunque lo desconozca y lo haga inconscientemente) se le pone en duda su creencia o doctrina, muy posiblemente pasen 4 cosas:

  1. Ignorará las objeciones en contra de su fe o doctrina.
  2. Insultara a su replicante.
  3. Dara una excusa para no replicar con versículos de la biblia y con mucha seguridad, serán citas sacadas de contexto.

O en el peor de los casos…

  1. Se alejará de su fe o doctrina.

De hecho, este tipo de cristianos se basan más en sus experiencias emocionales que en la misma biblia y debo de mencionar que esto es lo que asombra más de ellos, por varios motivos. La primera razón obviamente, es que a medida que estas personas crecen en su fe, prefieren vivir en un éxtasis que conocer y asegurar que la biblia es verdadera como también si su Fe es verdadera.

La segunda razón es que este tipo de cristianos, le tienen miedo al conocimiento de la palabra de Dios (Su estudio formal y sistematizado).

Y la tercera razón, más extraño aun, es un delirio que no quieran profundizar y conocer su fe, porque piensen que la “letra mata”. De las tres razones presentadas, creo que esta es la más disparatada.

Próxima parte, la historia que hay de cristianos con una fe razonable.

Referencias:

[1] R. Latourelle, Fideísmo y tradicionalismo, en DTF, 483-486: R. Aubert, El acto de fe, Barcelona 1965:

https://mercaba.org/VocTEO/F/fideismo.htm

[2] PERRONE, Praelectiones theologicae, vol. I: De ver Religione; OLLE-LAPRUNE, De la Certitude Morale (5ta ed., Paris, 1905); MERCIER, Critériologie générale (4ta. ed., Lovaina, 1900), III, ch. I; JOHN RICKABY, The First Principles of Knowledge (4ta. ed., Londres, 1901), chs. XII, XIII.

Párrafo 4 al 8.

[3] Ibíd, párrafo 9.

[4] Discurso del Festival Internacional de Ciencia de Edimburgo (1992)

[5] Penn y Teller: ¡Mierda! (Temporada 3, Episodio 5: “Holier Than Thou”)

[6] Carta a una nación cristiana (Vintage Books, 2008), 110.

 

Xavier González es de Venezuela, se dedica al estudio de la filosofía, cristianismo primitivo y teología. Se convirtió al cristianismo a los 15 años. Administró la página de Me Lo Contó Un Ateo y es el encargado de la sección de apologética de la página de la Iglesia cristiana la gracia (http://www.iglesialagracia.org).

/by