It occurred to me that if you kick away the foundation of religious belief (faith), you’re not going to be able to rebuild that foundation from logic. Certainly you should consider whether you’ve been reasonable in building upon your faith, but the foundation of faith itself cannot be derived from reason. That’s why I wrote that religion can’t be acquired through reason.

Since writing the post, I’ve realized that I should have been broader in my disclaimer. If you go deep enough in reconsidering why you believe what you do, you’ll end up asking philosophical questions like whether reason and logic themselves can be trusted. Like faith, these foundations cannot be created through logic and my post starts to break down. Maybe that’s what Mark was objecting to in his first comment.

To clarify, I’m simply suggesting we go down one or two layers and try to recognize what assumptions are employed when we make judgments about the world. When they’re actually spelled out, they may not be so obviously true.

In my own case, it would have been a kind of imposed ignorance. Fifteen years ago, I couldn’t have told you much about the Roman Catholics except that (like the Communist bogeymen Tara mentions) I had been taught they were evil or at least seriously deluded. Then I actually read their catechism (or, at least, skimmed it) and found they weren’t that bad. So I certainly see the benefit of examining ones own preconceived notions for error.

And, again related to the original point of knowing why you believe what you believe, I would agree that knowledge of “why” is important, but from my experience with (mostly reformed-flavored) Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I would point out that one of the striking differences between Orthodoxy and the others is the emphasis of living over knowing. We baptize our children and consider them fully Christian. Certainly education is important, but it is less important than right worship (orthodoxy) and right living (orthopraxis). (This leads to a different understanding of the Great Commission for example.)

I suppose that what I’m trying to say so clumsily is that I disagree with Plato and Socrates. An intellectually unexamined life is very much “worth living”. If it weren’t then I could find a lot of worthless lives out there. A fool’s piety is better than the philosopher’s knowledge.

Is self-examination a good thing? Of course — it is the beginning of repentance. But better is having a knowledge (in the biblical sense) of the Truth from the start and not wavering from it.

Of course, this Truth is completely the kind that can only be acquired through revelation, not reason.

This naturally leads to the question: how do we know the difference?

Jeremy, religion might not be the term you want from what you just said. Another counter example that I had in mind is someone converting to Islam to win advancement with a caliph back in the day. If he assented to Islamic beliefs and followed their practices, it would count as a conversion from any historical or sociological perspective.

I’d guess that there have been people who have converted from Mormonism or the JWs to orthodox Christianity purely based on a rational argument. I’d extended that to moving among the Abrahamic faiths. There are also certainly people who say they have moved from atheism/agnosticism to Christianity based on reason. Josh McDowell comes to mind.

Certainly Protestant (and Orthodox – don’t know about Catholic) theology do not allow for people to accept the Christian faith based on reason alone.

Regardless, it seems that your post would be applicable to religion since you do admit that reason can be involved in some role in coming to a Faith/religion and I assume in going away from it. Have I managed to pull this back on topic? (even a little bit)

The unexamined life is not worth living. – Socrates by way of Plato

Christianity is based almost entirely on revelation – God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ and, as a result, our relationship with God (that is, our religion) is not based on reason.

First, I had to sign something today about not plotting to overthrow the government. At least that is what I always thought I was agreeing to in the past. It actually said that I’m not involved with plots against the form of government of this country.

Second, you said religion can’t be acquired through reason. It seems like there are many counterexamples to this if I take the statement at face value. As an example, I’m sure there are people who have become Buddhists because its view of suffering fits with what they have observed of the world.

I would suggest that we should be working on figuring out why we believe. I imagine it’s a life-long process.

For a Christian living by faith, this is more than an intellectual process. I think you have to work on the why without letting go of what you believe. Otherwise you move from strengthening your faith to attacking it.

[insert self-deprecating comment here so I don't sound too full of myself]

You have four kids and you can ask? :)