To set fideism, one could say that it is the opposite of rationalism. It is the refusal to confront the data of faith to reason, as if faith was not based on anything rational, and would do nothing to justify reason. Faith is simply a personal belief that I take because I am willing to adopt. So it would fall more voluntarism as a reality that I should fold. A person fideist often refuse to discuss the reasons why she believes because she has voluntarily severed the rational dimension of faith. It will only answer a small maxim of "I believe because I believe," "faith is a personal matter", "you have not lived what I lived, etc..
To give an example of a vision fideist, I will quote Martin Luther, a important figure of the Protestant Reformation: "The reason is the biggest whore of the devil ... we should trample on and destroy her and her wisdom. Throw him in the face of junk to make it ugly. It is and should be drowned in baptism. She deserves the abominable, that relegates the most disgusting place in the house, firms * . I am not saying that all Christians Protestants necessarily fideist approach, but I think this sentence, despite its vulgar language, though this position represents.
fideism Why is it as an impasse? Because faith has then no sound basis to build. Faith is then considered as a matter of experience and personal feeling. As the faith is not based on anything reasonable, it has difficulty to connect to others and, before that no reasons can then push the other to relativism or religious indifference. For the person himself, when good feelings are more experienced and confrontations happen (believe me it will happen sooner or later), we may be tempted to flee and retreat or even dropping revelation of Christ. It's not for nothing that one can read in the first letter of Peter: "Instead, in your hearts sanctify Christ the Lord, always ready to defend against anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" .
According to our personality, some people are more naturally inclined towards one or other of these deadlocks. In the next article I will try to explain how one can avoid these two extremes.
* The legal philosophy of Martin Luther, Book IV, p. 142
0 comments:
Post a Comment