(urth) Information, etc

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On 4/18/06, James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net> wrote:
> ...I haven't been able to get this back and forth off my mind.
> It so perfectly encapsulates the divide between modern
> seculars' view of Faith as opposed to that of modern
> observants and virtually all pre-Enlightenment Westerners.

H'mmm. I found your post interesting and compelling, except
for one thing: if my "back and forth" with Christ "perfectly
encapsulates" this divide, then I ought to find myself in one
or the other of these two positions:

> For modern seculars Faith is practically antonymous to Reason.

...

> On the other hand, the modern observants ... see materialist
> seculars as merely followers of an alternate (idolatrist) religion.

Yet, I do not. I do see secularism as a belief-system, but to call
it a "religion" is to abuse both words ("secular" and "religion").
And I certainly do not see Faith as "antonymouc to Reason":
complementary, rather. We are required to apply Reason to all
things; we are required to apply Faith (whether in God, or in
Luck, or in the perversity of the inanimate, or...) to make up the
deficit in those situations where Reason cannot help us but a
decision is required.

--Dan'l

--
I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.
                        -- St Teresa of Avila
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer