Lake Como, Italy (photos from trekearth.com)
Fideism explained
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Fideism explained
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Amesbury, Richard (2022) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fideism, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/
'The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.'
'Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.'
According to R.K. Johnston, fideism is a term used by Protestant modernists in Paris in the late 19th century. It is often used as a pejorative term to attack various strands of Christianity as forms of irrationalism. Johnston (1999: 415). Fideists, following Kant, who noted that reason cannot prove religious truth are said to base their religious understanding upon religious experience alone. Reason is believed to be incapable of establishing faith's certainty or credibility. Johnston (1999: 415). Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note that fideism states religious and theological truth must be accepted without the use of reason. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). An extreme form of fideism states that reason misleads one in religious understanding. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). Johnston explains that the concept of fideism has little value as most theologians would not deny the use of reason. The term fideism is useful when it describes an excessive emphasis upon the subjective aspects of Christianity. Johnston (1999: 415).
Fideism can serve as a useful term when describing the overuse of emotional and subjective experience in Christianity, other religions, and all philosophy in regard to religion. Whenever there is the use of blind faith without the significant use of reason, there is a form of fideism. In my mind, fideism in religious and even may I suggest, non-religious contexts, is one of the most dangerous philosophical approaches to embrace.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/
'The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.'
'Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.'
According to R.K. Johnston, fideism is a term used by Protestant modernists in Paris in the late 19th century. It is often used as a pejorative term to attack various strands of Christianity as forms of irrationalism. Johnston (1999: 415). Fideists, following Kant, who noted that reason cannot prove religious truth are said to base their religious understanding upon religious experience alone. Reason is believed to be incapable of establishing faith's certainty or credibility. Johnston (1999: 415). Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note that fideism states religious and theological truth must be accepted without the use of reason. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). An extreme form of fideism states that reason misleads one in religious understanding. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). Johnston explains that the concept of fideism has little value as most theologians would not deny the use of reason. The term fideism is useful when it describes an excessive emphasis upon the subjective aspects of Christianity. Johnston (1999: 415).
Fideism can serve as a useful term when describing the overuse of emotional and subjective experience in Christianity, other religions, and all philosophy in regard to religion. Whenever there is the use of blind faith without the significant use of reason, there is a form of fideism. In my mind, fideism in religious and even may I suggest, non-religious contexts, is one of the most dangerous philosophical approaches to embrace.
In a religion context, in its mild form, it does not significantly use reason in developing theology and philosophy, and in its extreme form can lead to all kinds of ridiculous views without the use of reason and evidence from a variety of academic disciplines. Fideism is a reason why many cultists and false religionists, can strongly hold to intellectually weak philosophical and theological views which an educated open-minded religious or non-religious person can often debunk in a few moments. Fideism is a form of intellectual laziness and spiritual blindness which can keep persons from truth.
Concerning Kant
Kant explains in The Critique of Practical Reason that the noumena realm is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena realm is one’s own empirical consciousness. All positive speculative knowledge should be disclaimed for the noumena realm according to Kantian thought. Kant concludes the text by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence. The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world. Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100).
In a sense, I do not disagree with the Kantian view that the noumena realm is not empirically knowable. To be more precise, the noumena realm is not of physical matter. I readily admit that God as being spirit is not empirically or scientifically provable. Jesus stated that God is spirit in John 4:24 and therefore God is not of a material nature and cannot be proven by the use of matter, space, energy or scientific experiment. But in contrast to Kantian thought, I reason that God can reveal self to humanity. God can reveal the supernatural realm within the natural realm. Humanity can have reasonable faith in God.
Peter D. Klein’s notes in the article Certainty, the idea that a proposition is true and certain if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it. Klein (1996: 113). This is a reasonable concept, and I support the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. The existence of God therefore would never be 100% certain to finite human beings, but would always be certain to the infinite God. God could reasonably be understood as philosophically certain as long as arguments that supported God's existence were true beyond any reasonable doubt, and/or the arguments for God were superior to those opposing them. Christian arguments for God would primarily come from revealed Scripture and secondarily would come from philosophy and the use of theistic, philosophy of religion.
Certainty within a Christian worldview, is not 100% absolute certainty. Absolute certainty would require infinity and infinite knowledge, which only God has in nature and attributes. But in my view, Christianity is reasonably certain, as key premises for the Christian worldview are both internally and externally consistent. In other words, Christianity can be stated to be of reasonable certainty, especially when the Biblical manuscripts, and Christian theology, are internally consistent and historically true. At the same time, Christianity is reasonably certain when the external premises/arguments, and/or propositions in opposition are inferior. Christianity would therefore be internally and externally consistent and therefore could be stated to have reasonable certainty.
Bibliography
AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.
JOHNSTON, R.K.(1996) ‘Fideism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt
KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Revised and reformatted version placed on academia.edu on 20240629
