It’s the coherence between my ideas and beliefs and my lived experience that I’m after and I think that goal is aided by faith (and is impossible without faith). If that constitutes ‘explanation’ then we’ve probably reached a dead end (I’m a little confused by your repeated reaction against these two words being used together. Am I missing something important?).

Thank you for answering my questions. I would obviously disagree with you on #3 but I appreciate the clarity with which you answered.

As to your last statement, I agree wholeheartedly.

“Jerry I’m not exactly sure how I’ve claimed that faith is a method of explanation (as if it explains some things and reason explains others). If I’ve led you to that conclusion then I should have been clearer… I think I’ve tried to say that both are necessary in the pursuit of truth but I have never tried to argue that faith explains things IN THE SAME WAY that reason does.” (my emphasis)

Saying that faith explains things in a different way than reason is still saying that faith explains something.

“My point all along has been that the meaning of reality is not completely accessible to us if empirical verification is our only standard of truth.”

I recognize that this is your main point (which you’ve repeated in the conversation), but you make some serious claims adjacent to the main point (intentionally or unintentionally) that shouldn’t be ignored - “I would say that a proper recognition of the limitations of reason (including the assumptions that underwrite it) could be better explained by faith“… “I don’t necessarily think faith does anything to reason other than give it a proper sense of what it can do and what it cannot.”” (The giving of a proper sense can only be done via explanation.)

And now I’ll respond to your last three questions:

(1) Do you believe that reason has limits?

See what I said in 5th comment - “when reason reveals its own limitations, what I understand as a line it is currently incapable of crossing”

(2) Do you believe that the meaning of reality is fully explainable without taking some unproved assumptions as a starting point? No.

(3) Do you think that there is any rational way of deciding whether or not ultimate reality is personal or impersonal?

I think there is a rational way, but the choice is ultimately without a reason, it is a faith commitment (capable of being changed). I think we can influence this decision with a rational understanding of what can be repeatedly demonstrated about our current experiences of reality.

Like the ‘chicken and egg’ riddle, everyone has to decide for themselves through faith with reason whether the first of all existence is exclusively a personal being or an ever-changing universe that at times is both impersonal and personal (no one knows if other life forms have existed on other planets before life on earth began - but it’s possible).

Faith, if possible, should always be informed.

I think I’ve tried to say that both are necessary in the pursuit of truth but I have never tried to argue that faith explains things in the same way that reason does. I do think that people who think that reason is the only tool in the toolbox make some fundamental mistakes about the nature of knowledge and the nature of truth but I don’t think that’s the same thing as saying the faith is a rival method of explanation.

So yes, faith is about committing to ideas, not empirically verifying them. My point all along has been that the meaning of reality is not completely accessible to us if empirical verification is our only standard of truth.

So to put the question to you: do you believe that reason has limits? Do you believe that the meaning of reality is fully explainable without taking some unproved assumptions as a starting point? Put another way, do you think that there is any rational way of deciding whether or not ultimate reality is personal or impersonal?

My contention throughout this conversation has not been with this definition of faith, it’s what you’ve said in addition to this definition - specifically, faith as explanation. (I think I was fairly clear about this in the 3rd, 5th, and 7th comment. If you’d rather not address this contention, just say so, Gil.)

Again, my point was that I don’t think we can use faith to provide or explain ideas, only commit to them. Reason, on the other hand, can explore the optional ideas provided by our minds, whether the options be material or immaterial, recognizable or fantastical. Reason can challenge these ideas (whether people have faith in them or not), test them for logical consistency, provide evaluation and correction if needed. And, reason can explain them.

Anyways, thanks for the dialogue. And I’m looking forward to hearing more about your apologetics class!

Jerry

That kind of knowledge will never seem 100% certain, it will always be open to doubt. That kind of knowledge will always require making some kind of decision regarding what to do with that uncertainty. That decision, that risk, that commitment is what I mean by ‘faith’.

And all of us are forced to commit, either to a personal or an impersonal vision of truth. There is no court of appeal that could possibly help us decide between these two. We simply act in faith.

On the other you start from the position that is more open to the possibility of other forms of knowing (including the complexities of the knowledge of persons). Faith would obviously be valued more highly in the second of these two options but this would by no means preclude the possibility of doubt. In fact, it’s difficult to see how it possibly could.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by this?