# Faith And Reason



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Apr 18, 2018)

Please help recommend me to a good book on reconciling faith and reason. Thank you!


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 19, 2018)

Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics and Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Both go together. Two of the very best Reformed books on this subject


----------



## timfost (Apr 19, 2018)

The Heidelberg defines faith in three parts: knowledge, assent and trust (Q&A 21). Ursinus has a great discussion in his commentary about this.

Bavinck also write a book called _Our Reasonable Faith. _It's on my bookshelf, although I haven't read it yet.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2018)

The essays by Plantinga and Wolterstorff in _Faith and Rationality_.
https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2018/04/19/review-faith-and-rationality-plantinga/


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 19, 2018)

C. S. Lewis' _Miracles_ will always be a very worthwhile and very accessible treatment. I think I remember disagreeing with some things but it was overall very lucid (his mind seems to have had that distinctive quality from his early letters, arguing with his dad about why he needed a microscope ...) and profoundly evident, and edifying.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 20, 2018)

Virtually any book on the topic of natural theology will attempt to reconcile faith with reason- that is the very project of natural theology. My personal favorite is Scaling the Secular City by J.P. Moreland. It is advanced without being too technical and it covers a broad range of topics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Apr 20, 2018)

Thank you all so much.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 20, 2018)

I guess I would turn the tables on them with a series of questions:

1. Why is there a problem?
2. Is reason synonymous with logic?
3. Whose logic? Aristotle's? Russell's?
4. Isn't this just code for empiricism?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I guess I would turn the tables on them with a series of questions:
> 
> 1. Why is there a problem?
> 2. Is reason synonymous with logic?
> ...


Good.

Have you tun across any of these folks?
https://streetepistemology.com/

Persons that consider themselves capable apologists should have no problem with this:
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa065.htm

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 20, 2018)

William Young has written some on the matter.

https://presbyterianreformed.org/20...iam-young-early-years-changes-relation-today/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 20, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Good.
> 
> Have you tun across any of these folks?
> https://streetepistemology.com/
> ...



I have. It strikes me as modern-day Sophism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 20, 2018)

I had to look up Sophism. Where is the deception?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I had to look up Sophism. Where is the deception?



It's not deception in that sense. It's basically a bunch of guys who study one narrow branch of pop-culture epistemology simply to go up to people and start arguing with them--for no apparent end.

I can handle these guys because I study epistemology and metaphysics all day, every day. Most people don't, but that doesn't mean these guys are superior thinkers.

Here is a good response to them.
http://capturingchristianity.com/how-to-respond-to-street-epistemology/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 21, 2018)

So it is like TAG? No, but explain the difference if you can.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 21, 2018)

It is basically taking Boghossian's book, Manual for Creating Atheists, as some evangelistic movement for non-believers. Therein one will find the Socratic Method run amuk and abused if one takes the bait.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 21, 2018)

I read the blog. 
Slowly I might add. It really didn't end anywhere for me.

This is where we usually have problems...

"Let’s see if we can agree on a distinction before moving forward." 

It comes down to definitions and authorial intent. 

What am I missing? Is that not a TAG problem?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I read the blog.
> Slowly I might add. It really didn't end anywhere for me.
> 
> This is where we usually have problems...
> ...



TAG, like transcendental arguments in general, is simply asking what are the preconditions for intelligibility. I happen to think TAs are dead-end roads, theistic or atheistic.

These guys, by contrast, are asking along the lines of "How do you know what you know?" They aren't exactly asking what are the preconditions for what you know?
http://www.jpmoreland.com/articles/answering-the-skeptic/

https://apologetics315.com/2009/07/skepticism-epistemology-j-p-moreland-mp3-audio/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 21, 2018)

I haven't read the above references yet but will Jacob. What do you recommend as a good apologetical method? Where does Aquinas land in this discussion? I ask because I have listened to Sproul, Gerstner, and yes... Josh McDowell for years.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2018)

My own apologetic take is eclectic. It looks something like this:

1. Give defeaters to the other side's position (deduce a contradiction from within their worldview).

2. Build a cumulative case for Christianity.

Aquinas is mostly known as a classical apologist. He's worth reading in parts, and he is currently the "new sexy" in evangelical thought on the doctrine of God.

Sproul and Gerstner are good, and good enough for most apologetics encounters. Epistemology and metaphysics have come a LOONNNGGG way since them. To get a good handle on epistemology and metaphysics, I highly recommend the following:
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Ch...id=1524358336&sr=8-1&keywords=alvin+plantinga
https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-concept-of-god-ronald-nash.94048/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/plantinga-god-freedom-and-evil.94187/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/mccall-invitation-to-analytic-theology.94087/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 21, 2018)

Thanks bud, I have been away for a few years but will catch up. You and I have always had some connect of appreciation. Start reading a book for 15 minutes every day till it grows has been a great help. Start READING. Good advice the Navigator ministry gave called 7 minutes with God. Just dedicate at least that and grow from there. 

You are a blessing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks bud, I have been away for a few years but will catch up. You and I have always had some connect of appreciation. Start reading a book for 15 minutes every day till it grows has been a great help. Start READING. Good advice the Navigator ministry gave called 7 minutes with God. Just dedicate at least that and grow from there.
> 
> You are a blessing.



Thanks. I'm humbled by your kind words. The 15/7 worked for me. That's how I approach my Greek reading plan. Just start with a few verses and then it avalanches.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2018)

Ronald Nash has an ITunes course dealing with this stuff. I really enjoyed it and Nash was a fun lecturer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (May 2, 2018)

I'm often suspicious of the faith and reason distinction, not least of all from my own experiences with unbelievers. Once you admit it they take it that you're saying "faith vs reason". Even if we don't subscribe to that. So why except it? Just reject it upront and they have the burden of proof that you believe it. Than I try to show them that faith and reason have a very "mixed" relationship for everyone. They cannot be so neatly divided. I believe that the distinction "faith and reason" is merely a linguistic one. It may have uses but why not just attack their argument at its base by rejecting it, than they don't know what to do?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 2, 2018)

https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-philosophical-presuppositions-of-science.2960/

Here are some philosophical presuppostions (or faith-commitments) of science :
1. The existence of a theory, independent, external world.

2. The orderly nature of the external world.

3. The knowability of the external world.

4. The existence of truth.

5. The Laws of Logic.

6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gathers and as a source of justified beliefs in ourintellectual environment.

7. The adequacy of Language to describe the world.

8. The existence of values used in science (for example, "test theories fairly and report test results honestly).

9. The uniformity of nature and induction

10. The existence of numbers and mathematical truths.


----------



## jwright82 (May 2, 2018)

I think linguistic difference might be a confusing way of putting it. By that I mean faith and reason are two different perspectives of the same thing. So there is no epistemological difference merely one of perspective or linguistic, we can talk about the same thing from different perspectives.


----------



## jwright82 (May 2, 2018)

Sorry my phone messed up on me.


----------



## Don Kistler (May 2, 2018)

The late John Gerstner wrote 2 books that I found very helpful. "Reasons for Faith" and "Reasons for Duty." Both were published by Soli Deo Gloria. I've seen copies on Amazon.com and Ebay. I don't think they are still in print, however.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

