matching tracksuits

On Bishop Robert Barron's minstry's YouTube channel -- Word on Fire -- he had a conversation with staff member Brandon Vogt after Barron's interview with Alex O'Connor in which they promised to go a little deeper in the responses.

Vogt points out that Barron and O'Connor went back and forth for a long time on faith, and invited Barron to elucidate a little. Instead, he just gave the same analogy, changing it from getting to know his interlocutors to getting to one one's spouse:

The analogy which I think is very illuminating there I often use is come to know a person. So you're coming to know another human being. Of course, reason is involved all the time. I mean, reason understands all sorts of things, but there is a moment when that person, if you're coming to real intimacy with that person, reveals something about herself that you could not in principle know no matter how many google searches and how much analysis and how much how clever you. There's no way you'd get what's in that person's heart unless she chooses to reveal it, at which point you have to make a decision: do I believe it or not. Now is it credible what she's saying, and you might say, "Yeah it is because it's congruent with everything else I know about her." At the same time, is it reducible to what I know about her? No, otherwise it wouldn't be a revelation. So that's why it's a false dichotomy to say reason or faith. No, it's reason that has reached a kind of limit, but reason has opened a door. Reason has poised you for the self-manifestation of another.

Well, that's not just with God; that happens all the time. When two people are married and deeply in love, I'm sure you could point to those moments when [your wife] revealed something to you that you would never ever have known otherwise. You revealed something about yourself to her and then the two of you, because you're in love with each other, I imagine said, "Yeah, I believe that."

Now, can I reduce that to an argument? No, you never can. In a way it remains always mysterious to you yet your will, in that case, has commanded your intellect. That's exactly what Thomas Aquinas says about faith. It's a rare instance when the will commands the intellect. Normally, it moves the other way right? The intellect kind of leads the will. The intellect understands the good and then it leads the will, but in the case of faith, the will leads the intellect. It says, "No this is worthy of belief. This person who's speaking to me is worthy of belief, and what the person is telling me is congruent with reason yet beyond it, and so I choose to believe." That's the relationship between faith and reason it seems to me so.

In the debate with O'Connor, Barron defined faith as "the response to a revealing God." That makes very little sense in terms of how most people use faith. "You just have to have faith that God's plan, which involves this horrendous suffering, will result in good," someone might say. Let's switch those out: "You just have to have [the response to a revealing God] that God's plan, which involves this horrendous suffering, will result in good." Clearly, this definition of "faith" is not the same as the original sentence's sense of "faith." This might work for "the Christian faith" -- "the Christian response to a revealing God." That works. That's fine. You'd also have "the Muslim response to a revealing God," and so on -- but this "faith" just means "belief system" or even "religion."

Furthermore, the faith that Barron gives in this example is not faith -- it's trust. It's a trust that is based on experiential evidence. I believe my wife because she's shown herself to be trustworthy. I wouldn't make this same move (to use a favorite Barron term) with a stranger. The only time such a move (there it is again) is conceivable is if the revelation the stranger gives you is utterly trivial: "I have a dog."

This faith/trust often moves into faith/trust in Jesus, that we're to get to know Jesus and then we'll have faith in him. Or trust in him. But that is utterly different from the situation with my wife. My wife is physically present with me. She's not some hypothetical spiritual being out there but a real person that I can observe and talk to.

"You can get to know Jesus," comes the rejoinder. But how? Directly? No.

I can get to know him through the Bible, but that's problematic for obvious reasons that I've discussed numerous times here. It's filled with contradictions. The image of God presented in the Old Testament is positively barbaric. It's packed with immorality commanded from God -- it's just not a good example of a good supposedly written by an omnipotent being.

I can get to know him through what the church teaches about him, and here the Catholic church has a leg up on Protestants because they don't restrain themselves to the Bible. The magisterium has equal footing -- or nearly-equal footing. So if the Pope says it ex-cathedra, it's an article of faith. Still, that's just the same as relying on the Bible -- it's a product of humans.

Finally, I can get to know him in that way that Evangelicals and Mormons are especially fond of: that sense we have in our heart (it's telling that religions insist on using that metaphor when we've known for ages that the seat of our intellect is not our hearts but our brains -- it's an attempt, I suspect, to move the whole experience away from the intellect) that God is involved in our lives. That warm feeling in their hearts that Christians attribute to the Holy Spirit. I don't doubt the experience of that warm feeling, but to attribute it to anything outside one's own mind is itself an act of faith, an act not based on evidence. "It's the Holy Spirit!" the Bible proclaims and our pastors echo, and so Christians accept that explanation. Muslims have the same experiences but attribute that not to the Holy Spirit (that would be blaspheme, for God is one!) but to Allah. Hindus would make the same move. (It's rubbing off on me.)

So all three ways we get to know God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit are questionable: they're all open to interpretation; none are firmly grounded on rational reasoning based on evidence. That is what we skeptics mean when we say that faith is not reason, that it does not work in a similar way, and that it is separate from (sometimes anathema to) evidence.