The Catholic Church and Fideism

Recently a Catholic reader said this about my dismissal of theists as blind believers, lemmings, and unthinking purveyors of mindless platitudes: “… we Catholics are also against fideism.”

For those not familiar with the term:
fideism –noun
– exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.
– a philosophical view extolling theological faith by making it the ultimate criterion of truth and minimizing the power of reason to know religious truths.
.

In short when it comes to religious matters fideism implys all you need is faith, reason need not apply.

So, while the Catholic Church has been willing to allow a certain degree of reason to be mixed with it’s blind faith such as finally accepting evolutionary theory (with certain caveats) and ultimately rejecting the geocentric model of the universe– it is hardly anti-fideist . They may be perceived as more progressive than some other denominations of Christianity, and certainly Islam; but I wouldn’t call anything about Catholicism “reasoned.”

Since the existence of god or the supernatural has never been demonstrated by objective reasoning, in spite of the failed attempts by Aquinas, to continue to maintain that reason can prove god’s existence is plain Catholic self delusion. Reason that is reduced to subjective absurdity, distorted by the infusion of faith (i.e. “the proof of god is all around you.”) is not “reason” anymore so than calling astrology a science or calling a faith healer a medical professional.

Unless and until theistic philosophies / belief systems retain the fundamental precepts of religion that are good and not rooted in supernatural, and abandon those things that are in diametric opposition to reason, then reason will always be the enemy of faith, as Martin Luther said.

What kind of things? For starters things like saying condoms spread AIDS and their use is in opposition to some god’s will; masturbation is a “sin” ; homosexuality is a choice and a “sin”; dead things reanimate; the “trinity” is real; proffering that a man committing suicide repays the trespasses or takes away the imaginary sins of others; that life after death is real; that torture for an eternity for non-belief is genuine; that nonbelievers are immoral at face; that man is here for a greater “purpose” than are any other species of plant or animal life; trans-substantiation …  indeed any belief in/reliance on  the supernatural.
.
None of those things permit reason to displace the illogic and fantasy necessary to retain ones religious belief or a religion’s dogma. All of them reject scientific proofs, objective reasoning, history, zoology, cumulative secular knowledge, advances in morality, prima fascia statistical and observable evidence and common sense.
.
To suggest that any religion, including Catholicism, promotes reason as equal to or even approaching par with faith is simple self delusion. It’s an attempt to co-opt reason as a way to justify their blind following of myth, to establish Catholicism as a higher order of Christianity versus Protestantism. If Catholics read the bible in its entirety (which the majority do not), and without Catholic apologetic sites to reinterpret and thus smooth its obscene and unreasoned acts in an effort to transform them, make their “context” seem reasoned and palatable — their reason would overwhelm their faith. Catholicism would dissolve even faster than it is now in the industrialized world.
.
No, sorry — saying Catholicism opposes fideism is simply ignoring the facts of what superstitious belief demands of its adherents. The Catholic Church HAS to discredit reason in order to stay viable, just like any other religion, sect, or cult… that they pay reason lip service in their doctrine of pure faith is simply a shell game to get believers to accept they aren’t mindless unthinking zombies. But, they are.

26 comments

  1. History itself is proof enough that the Catholic Church had a hard time getting in touch with the changing times. Faith or whatever you call it, believe it or not, it's up to you. Christianity itself isn't even a unique religion. It has borrowed so many theological ideas from the religions of the ancient world.

    • Lemaitre's insights are accepted by the scientific community because it is consistent with observations and it comes from a chain of reasoning that follows the scientific method. If Einstein himself came out with a theory of everything, which was based not on evidence but on a dream he had where a baboon told him about quantum gravity, even if it were to be eventually proven correct, it would be useless and be pure guesswork (like faith). Lemaitre himself repudiated Pope Pius XII for opportunistically seizing science to support faith.

      When someone is a man of faith, this doesn't mean his scientific views are based on faith and invalid. Conversely, just because someone has scientific views doesn't mean his faith is based on rational understanding. People believe in contradictory things all the time. In Orwellian terms, this is called doublethink. Note that the Big Bang is also consistent with the Pan-gu creation myth of the Chinese (even more so, with its cosmic egg), but I don't see you attending the Taoist services.

      Isaac Newton, whose universal laws of nature are still being used today, was an alchemist and a mystic. Does that mean that alchemy or mysticism also rely on reason and observations of nature, like Newton's laws of motion? No. Please stop using non sequiturs.

      • At the risk of invoking a Godwin, Hitler was also a Catholic, and unlike most of the scientists and researchers Reynor tried to invoke, de Fuhrer was very vocal about his faith played into the Nazi ideology.

        Funny how Reynor always forgets that the RCC's got its own share of monsters who used their faith for malicious means, no?

      • it is meant as a response to the author's claim that:

        "All of them reject scientific proofs, objective reasoning, history, zoology, cumulative secular knowledge, advances in morality, prima fascia statistical and observable evidence and common sense.To suggest that any religion, including Catholicism, promotes reason as equal to or even approaching par with faith is simple self delusion."

        • Did he say that "All of them reject ALL scientific proofs"? No. He was only saying that reason always takes a back seat to faith and that to be religious, you must necessarily reject some scientific findings, such as the lack of apparent design in the universe. And this rejection belies any claim by the Church to be based on reason because to reject scientific consensus without evidence or rational argument is unreasonable.

          Everyone wants to be reasonable. But being a rational person has responsibilities such as reliance on evidence, intellectual honesty, and critical thinking. You have to follow through with conclusions even if they contradict your most cherished beliefs. THAT is what it is to not rely on faith. It doesn't matter what you feel like believing. You are beholden to the facts and as for the rest, you don't know but you try to find out. Faith skips that and says, "I don't know, but it's probably God or aliens or mystic energy."

  2. You cannot possibly be telling me that people like Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel, pioneers in their respective fields of Physics and Genetics, are "mindless, unthinking zombies"! Those are just some examples (@Diego Hermano mentions a couple more). And that doesn't even include the less famous ones, ordinary modern Catholics like Mary Anne Marks who graduated valedictorian (Harvard Class of 2010) and then subsequently entered the convent.

    • we can also include Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. who earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard, a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and now serving as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia

  3. i cannot help but notice that you seem to have a pre-set prejudice against Catholicism which slants your conclusion. if you seriously believe that "The Catholic Church HAS to discredit reason in order to stay viable, just like any other religion, sect, or cult… that they pay reason lip service in their doctrine of pure faith is simply a shell game to get believers to accept they aren’t mindless unthinking zombies. But, they are." then you would discredit Peter Lombard, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Dupuis, Alice von Hildebrand, Dietrich von Hildebrand and a host of other great thinkers who have contributed to the advance of human thought and society as mere ideologues with a false and misled desire for truth. your sweeping conclusion which limps in reason expose you for an ideologue who mask your iconoclasm as freethinking.

    • Hermano, the achievements in philosophy of the scholars you mention do not justify the crimes the RCC's current leaders have attempted to hide for decades. Learn to tell one from the other.

      • "Hermano, the achievements in philosophy of the scholars you mention do not justify the crimes the RCC's current leaders have attempted to hide for decades. Learn to tell one from the other." -twin-skies

        I am not sure which particular achievment in philosophy you are referring to or maybe it was meant to be a sweeping statement but in any case none are meant to justify any crimes, crimes that are not a result of the teachings of the Church but by the abuse, disobedience, and misinterpretation of those teachings. It is important to know and recognize one from the other.

    • …including the numerous Nobel laureates and academics in the field of astronomy, chemistry, botany, agrnomy, zoology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, neuroscience, surgery, mathematics,physics, etc…that make up the Pontifical Academy of Science.

      • So, did they happen to achievers because they were Catholic, or did they just happen to be Catholic when they made these achievements?

        • the point is that the Church recognizes the important of science, reason, and logic, in response to Bart's claim "To suggest that any religion, including Catholicism, promotes reason as equal to or even approaching par with faith is simple self delusion."

          • And you failed to explain just how big a factor was each of these scholar's Catholic beliefs to their overall thinking process.

          • Well, whenever the Catholic Church runs into an opinion it does not like, I've seen your ilk claim they're not "real" Catholics.

            But whenever they achieve something noteworthy, regardless of how much their faith plays into their work, you don't seem to have problems claiming them for your own.

          • “Well, whenever the Catholic Church runs into an opinion it does not like, I've seen your ilk claim they're not "real" Catholics.” –twinskies

            I have yet to see a case where a Catholic, in living faithfully the Catholic Faith, have done what you have been trying to cite to prove your point. The key is to distinguish between the teaching and the abuse of, misinterpretation of, and/or disobedience to the teaching that resulted to an unfavorable act.

            “But whenever they achieve something noteworthy, regardless of how much their faith plays into their work, you don't seem to have problems claiming them for your own.” -twinskies

            The article is about the accusation of divorce of reason from faith. The Church recognizing the ‘scientific” achievement of the people mentioned refutes the position that the author of the article is trying to promote. For whether the people mentioned are Catholic or not, living their Catholic Faith or not, is not relevant in this particular topic…in fact, the less they are living their Catholic faith, if some of them are, the more credible the position that I am proposing here because it will only show that the recognition of their scientific achievement is not because of their faith but because of their excellence in their scientific work.

          • [I have yet to see a case where a Catholic, in living faithfully the Catholic Faith, have done what you have been trying to cite to prove your point. The key is to distinguish between the teaching and the abuse of, misinterpretation of, and/or disobedience to the teaching that resulted to an unfavorable act. ]

            And yet again amaze us with how well you can pretend to be an ignorant twat.

            Here's a comment from nuntym at one of the threads regarding Catholics who he feels aren't "authentic" enough:

            [Jealous? Not really. It is not the number of Catholics who leave that irk me, it's the number of "catholycs" who do not follow the teachings of the Church yet insist on using the name "Catholic" to describe themselves. I will be VERY glad if the "cafeteria Catholics" (probably 60% of all Catholics) would all just man up and truly leave the Church. ]

            [The article is about the accusation of divorce of reason from faith. The Church recognizing the ‘scientific” achievement of the people mentioned refutes the position that the author of the article is trying to promote. ]

            The article was also quote spot-on regarding the church's medieval stance regarding AIDs prevention mind you. A point you have yet to refute, and need I remind you, that you attempted to answer by taking the statements of researcher Edward Green out of context during our prior argument at the forums. Yes, I have yet for forget that.

            On a related note, if the church is in support of scientific research, then tell us – why then is the CBCP having trouble trying to provide any serious data regarding their assertion of being pro-life, and instead resort to bullying tactics to stovepipe the RH Bill?

            Most of the data I've seen being trumped around by their apologists has been from two known Opus Dei stooges.

            Why are they against gays as well, despite the fact that numerous studies have already confirmed that gay communities are no more different from other people, and that the persecution they feel IS leading suicide?

            You claim that the RCC is in support of science, and yet you have yet to answer directly their transgressions the RCC had comitted again these these two matters – as was mentioned in the article – despite the growing scientific evidence in support of gay equality, and the RH bill.

          • “And yet again amaze us with how well you can pretend to be an ignorant twat.” -twinskies

            Here's a comment from nuntym at one of the threads regarding Catholics who he feels aren't "authentic" enough:

            [Jealous? Not really. It is not the number of Catholics who leave that irk me, it's the number of "catholycs" who do not follow the teachings of the Church yet insist on using the name "Catholic" to describe themselves. I will be VERY glad if the "cafeteria Catholics" (probably 60% of all Catholics) would all just man up and truly leave the Church. ]

            It proves my point that one has to distinguish between the two.

            “The article was also quote spot-on regarding the church's medieval stance regarding AIDs prevention mind you. A point you have yet to refute, and need I remind you, that you attempted to answer by taking the statements of researcher Edward Green out of context during our prior argument at the forums. Yes, I have yet for forget that.” –twinskies

            Provided that Edward Green supports condom use, he clearly said “Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him [the pope].” How you arrive at a conclusion that that statement is a spot-on regarding the “church’s medieval stance” remains to be explained.

            “You claim that the RCC is in support of science, and yet you have yet to answer directly their transgressions the RCC had comitted again these these two matters – as was mentioned in the article – despite the growing scientific evidence in support of gay equality, and the RH bill.”-twinskies

            Scientific evidence supporting gay equality and the RH Bill? And using this to refute the support of science?

          • [It proves my point that one has to distinguish between the two. ]

            And that can be a problem. The RH camp alone has Catholi conservatives such as the CBCP claiming that anybody who supports an RH program are not really Catholics.

            And yet a a paper submitted by 14 professors from admu – a team that includes teachers from their Theology Department – has declared that a Catholic can also support the bill while adhering to their teachings.

            [Provided that Edward Green supports condom use, he clearly said “Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him [the pope].” How you arrive at a conclusion that that statement is a spot-on regarding the “church’s medieval stance” remains to be explained. ]

            Green was also explicit about disagreeing with the pope's stance on no condoms use. To quote that section of the interview you seem to have forgotten:

            [William Crawley: That's a serious ideological difference between yourself and the Pope. He doesn't think that condoms should be used, even in the case of married Catholic couples where one of the partners is HIV-positive.

            Edward Green: Yes, well, I don't agree with that. And, I have said that I am not a Catholic, and I am not talking about condoms in any sort of moral-ethical sense. I am talking about what has been found to work and not work. So, yes, the article I mentioned by Hearst and Chen is very clear that condoms work in certain types of situations and certain sub-populations and condoms have had a positive national impact in certain concentrated epidemics. So, yes, I don't agree with the Pope across the board.]

            [Scientific evidence supporting gay equality and the RH Bill? And using this to refute the support of science? ]

            In Layman's terms – You claim that the church supports science, and yet with regard to these two issues, the RCC has stuck to stances not based on scientific data, but rather on religious dogma and old prejudices.

          • [The Church recognizing the ‘scientific” achievement of the people mentioned refutes the position that the author of the article is trying to promote.]

            And yet more evidence against your blatant ignorance – researchers who've called out the RCC for distorting their data regarding the gay community:
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?i
            http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/24/2996
            http://respectmyresearch.org/scientists/dr-carol-

            As I've stated before – the RCC has a knack for accepting the achievements of other people if they even remotely say they're Catholic, and yet your ranks won't hesitate to distort the research of those who run contrary to your views.

  4. I think it is safe to say that any religion that holds even the basic story of Jesus as true suffers from an over-dependence on fideism. The Catholics do have some "progressive" (relative term in this case) priests who have found ways to wedge scientific knowledge (such as evolution) into their religious context. It must be understood, however, that when they do this they are not promoting the concept of evolutiuon as a scientist would know it, but a mix and match version that allows them to hold onto their views that are actually counter to evolution. Bart listed several beliefs that not only catholics but most chrisitans hold true to that are contrary to reason and that require a high degree of fideism to hold onto.

    Great post Bart.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here