Not sure I agree totally with this bit: ..."Because a belief is simply a decision I’ve taken myself and not even filtered though the complex nodes and neurons that are my brain. No, belief doesn’t come from reason, reasoning, argumentation or scientific proof – perish the thought!"...
Thomism, I'd argue, is indeed the strongest attempt to inject reason and logic into a thought process about Catholic faith. I subscribe to it. While I may never reach the point where I can provide a proof for a kind and loving God, I'm confident that Thomas (and Anselm before him) have indeed proven rationally the existence of God.
Your comment is extremely welcome. But your precept is not mine. Let me explain.
First off, I myself don't like the word "decision", but I left it because the main thrust is there: it's a decision dictated by the heart. But the terminology could be better.
I can go to many a text on many a subject and there I will find citations of men and women wiser than I shall ever be who know things I do not. In a previous relationship, my partner had endless discussions with his superiors and I ultimately told him: "How you reason things is not how they reason them. You must decide here and now whether your life is to be reasoned as you see it, or to be reasoned as conformism to a reflection that you see of them in the mirror, as opposed to being a reflection of yourself."
This article was prompted by a talk on Sunday with a very close friend who doesn't believe in God. We've know each other for 30 years, but he respects my view and I respect his. My ultimate answer is "Neither of us will have the chance upon epiphany to tell the other 'I told you so.'" That's, in the end, what belief boils down to.
Time again, I'm confronted with the proposition that "evidence of God is scant." Yet we don't really know how electricity works; but we believe in it, because it works. To my mind, so much works on Earth that to deny God is disingenuous. Others differ.
My relationship to God is mine. Others may have a relationship, but theirs are theirs. I encapsulated this in a nonsense that I voice as: "God is not for everyone. He is for every one." Each must find his own road to God, and, with the will, will find it. Whether through organised religion, through spiritual epiphany, or through reasoned thought. My own path has been a mixture of the three but one element has predominated: if my relationship to God is my relationship, if I am to see myself in the mirror and not another teacher or professor who has also thought about God, then I must think myself about God, about my relationship to Him. Now, wondrous is the fact that He does speak to me, but not in English or in pictures. But things persuade me that He is here with me.
I don't wish to sound like a genius or autodidactic even, but if God is for you, then you can find God, without authoritative texts. There are musicians who can sing a perfect-pitch A. There are geographers who know instinctively where north is. And there are individuals who can tread a path towards God, and who may well err from that path on occasion, but if they think, they will reach God. But what spurs the thinking is belief. Once one has belief, then one can reason WHY you believe. What speaks against belief? Is it because of what the priest told you? Or is it because your soul tells you that what the priest told you cannot be but right? In the end: does it stand to reason that you believe?
There are other essays on belief here, if you wish to look. Here are the links:
Not sure I agree totally with this bit: ..."Because a belief is simply a decision I’ve taken myself and not even filtered though the complex nodes and neurons that are my brain. No, belief doesn’t come from reason, reasoning, argumentation or scientific proof – perish the thought!"...
Thomism, I'd argue, is indeed the strongest attempt to inject reason and logic into a thought process about Catholic faith. I subscribe to it. While I may never reach the point where I can provide a proof for a kind and loving God, I'm confident that Thomas (and Anselm before him) have indeed proven rationally the existence of God.
Your comment is extremely welcome. But your precept is not mine. Let me explain.
First off, I myself don't like the word "decision", but I left it because the main thrust is there: it's a decision dictated by the heart. But the terminology could be better.
I can go to many a text on many a subject and there I will find citations of men and women wiser than I shall ever be who know things I do not. In a previous relationship, my partner had endless discussions with his superiors and I ultimately told him: "How you reason things is not how they reason them. You must decide here and now whether your life is to be reasoned as you see it, or to be reasoned as conformism to a reflection that you see of them in the mirror, as opposed to being a reflection of yourself."
This article was prompted by a talk on Sunday with a very close friend who doesn't believe in God. We've know each other for 30 years, but he respects my view and I respect his. My ultimate answer is "Neither of us will have the chance upon epiphany to tell the other 'I told you so.'" That's, in the end, what belief boils down to.
Time again, I'm confronted with the proposition that "evidence of God is scant." Yet we don't really know how electricity works; but we believe in it, because it works. To my mind, so much works on Earth that to deny God is disingenuous. Others differ.
My relationship to God is mine. Others may have a relationship, but theirs are theirs. I encapsulated this in a nonsense that I voice as: "God is not for everyone. He is for every one." Each must find his own road to God, and, with the will, will find it. Whether through organised religion, through spiritual epiphany, or through reasoned thought. My own path has been a mixture of the three but one element has predominated: if my relationship to God is my relationship, if I am to see myself in the mirror and not another teacher or professor who has also thought about God, then I must think myself about God, about my relationship to Him. Now, wondrous is the fact that He does speak to me, but not in English or in pictures. But things persuade me that He is here with me.
I don't wish to sound like a genius or autodidactic even, but if God is for you, then you can find God, without authoritative texts. There are musicians who can sing a perfect-pitch A. There are geographers who know instinctively where north is. And there are individuals who can tread a path towards God, and who may well err from that path on occasion, but if they think, they will reach God. But what spurs the thinking is belief. Once one has belief, then one can reason WHY you believe. What speaks against belief? Is it because of what the priest told you? Or is it because your soul tells you that what the priest told you cannot be but right? In the end: does it stand to reason that you believe?
There are other essays on belief here, if you wish to look. Here are the links:
https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/superstition-and-photography
https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/superstition-and-electricity
https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/on-plausible-deniability
None of them is right. None is wrong. All are what I feel and think. But it's a work in progress, and it will remain a work in progress until the Day.