McCabe on Faith and Reason - Essay Example

McCabe on Faith and Reason If one takes a close look at the role that the religion has played in the human civilization, one can not help noticing that it has always been a significant social institution. Indeed, the traces of it can be found almost at the very dawn of society. However, one should note that the nature of religion has dramatically changed since these times. As the society evolved, so did the religion. So, the primitive faith in the metaphysical explanation of the natural phenomena was substituted by a more sophisticated spiritual framework which can be exemplified by the contemporary world religions. Indeed, Christianity or Islam operate with rather complex notions and require their followers to have a strong faith. In this paper I will argue that Herbert McCabe fails to draw a good connection between faith and reason because his arguments are too ambiguous. This represents the major drawback of his position when it comes to explaining what role the latter plays in the former. In order to demonstrate this, I will first explore his position on the connection between faith and reason; then pay attention to the merits of it and, afterwards, put emphasis on the deficiencies that can be found in it. To begin with, it may be particularly important to outline the view of McCabe on the way faith and reason are connected. He points out that there are two extreme positions when it comes to faith: on the one hand, some might argue that to practice it one should not have any reasons at all which means that faith is above any reasoning; on the other hand, others are firm in that their faith can hardly be disproved logically. The scholar notes that true understanding of faith lies somewhere in between as “the first extreme makes the notion of truth inapplicable. The other makes the notion of faith inapplicable” (McCabe 5). In addition McCabe notes that people who dismiss the importance of the relationship between faith and reasons fail to “take sufficiently seriously the point that faith means holding something as true – they think of faith as more an act of courage or trust in a very general sense” (McCabe 6). So, he proves that it is essential to make this relationship clear. There are several merits of such an approach. First of all, McCabe shows that faith should not be perceived as some kind of a metaphysical knowledge that is beyond common sense and is incompatible with logic. Quite the opposite, he draws several examples, as in the case of marrying for money, which show that faith is a rather difficult complex and any simplification often ends up becoming an oversimplification. That is why he does his best to defend his position with the help of transparent logical that everyone is able to follow. Secondly, the position that is advocated by McCabe is equally beneficial for every party that is involved in the argument. In other words, he does not write explicitly as a Christian scholar who wants to disprove his opponents. Quite the opposite: he presents a set of tools that are equally useful for true believers and atheists. In other words, the former and the latter are able to prove the validity of their view with the help of the thinking process that was outlined by McCabe. This means that he was able to find a common ground between the two sides of the conflict and utilize the tools that they both equally respect. However, this is exactly where the deficiency of his position lies. The point that is advocated by him is too ambiguous. In other words, McCabe states that it is equally permissible to be a true believer and have faith as the corner stone of one’s life as it normal to reject any notion of God. It is quite interesting to watch how he makes a sound argument for faith and presents another quite solid counter argument. This means that his position constitutes nothing by a restatement of the problem and does not contribute to his solution. McCabe may be great in exploring the reasons why people tend to be positing or negative with regard to faith. He is even able to make a plausible explanation of the reasons why this happens so. However, he does not explicitly answer the question in the titles: Is belief wishful thinking? At some point he answers affirmative, but he immediately makes important reservations that should be taken into account. Finally, one of the biggest deficiencies in his position is that from time to time he makes a statement that shapes the discussion, but fails to provide a rebuttal for it. Of course the discussion features the views of both sides, but there are still some aspects that explicitly show the subjective position of the author. For example, while discussing resurrection, McCabe argues that it can hardly be seen as a historical fact. However, he later builds his entire position on the notion that resurrection did actually happen. In other words, if he was truly faithful to the desire to have an objective discussion, he would never rely on an argument that is unacceptable by the other side. Having examined all the points which were brought up in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following conclusion: the position that is taken by McCabe about the connection between faith and reason is too ambiguous to put a period in the discussion about it. Indeed, the ideas which are expressed by this scholar are interesting and they have a lot of merits. First of all, they can be logically proven and the feature almost no fallacies in their expression. Secondly, equally respect every party that is involved in the argument. Nevertheless, this ambiguity of the position is something that diminishes its values as it does not contribute to the solution of the stated problem. Furthermore, the author is not able to remain fully objective when it comes to discussion of faith and injects certain subjective viewpoints into it. Works Cited McCabe, Herbert. Faith within Reason. London: Continuum, 2007. Print. Read More