Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fish - Faith Before Reason

Fish - Faith Before Reason

Ratings: (0)|Views: 120 |Likes:
Published by Eric W. Rodgers
In this essay, Dr. Stanley Fish responds to criticisms of Father Richard John Neuhaus to Dr. Fish's previous essay "Why We Can't All Just Get Along." Both were originally printed in the journal _First Things_ and were subsequently reprinted (with insubstantial changes) in Dr. Fish's book released in 1999, _The Trouble with Principle_.
In this essay, Dr. Stanley Fish responds to criticisms of Father Richard John Neuhaus to Dr. Fish's previous essay "Why We Can't All Just Get Along." Both were originally printed in the journal _First Things_ and were subsequently reprinted (with insubstantial changes) in Dr. Fish's book released in 1999, _The Trouble with Principle_.

More info:

Published by: Eric W. Rodgers on May 10, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





- 1 -
"Faith before Reason"
by Stanley Fish
[In a response to the previous chapter]
Father [Richard] Neuhaus [editor of the journal
First Things 
(where it first appeared)] mistakes my position when he says (or implies) that I pitfreedom of inquiry against truth or critical thought against a commitment to truth, or, moresimply, faith against reason. In fact I don’t regard these as opposed to one another (they arenot binaries) but as mutually interdependent. The difference between a believer and anonbeliever is not that one reasons and the other doesn’t, but that one reasons from a firstpremise the other denies; and from this difference flow others that make the fact that both arereasoning a sign not of commonality but of its absence.If, as Neuhaus says, a secularist liberal and a committed Christian recognize anddeploy the same “rules of reason, evidence, and critical judgment,” sooner or later they willdisagree about whether something is or is not evidence or about what it is evidence
, andsuch disagreements cannot be resolved by the rules of reason because the rules of reasonunfold in relation to a proposition they do not generate. That proposition—God exists or hedoesn’t, Christ is the word made flesh or he isn’t, human nature is perfectible or it isn’t—is anarticle of faith, and while two persons proceeding within opposing faiths might performidentical operations of logical entailment, they will end up in completely different placesbecause it is from different (substantive) places that they began.Let me turn again for an example to Milton. In Book VI of
Paradise Lost 
, Satan’s rebelsand God’s loyalists meet on the field of battle, but even to say this is to understate the level oftheir disagreement, since in the eyes of the loyalists this isn’t a battle at all—they know, asone of them declares, that God could have “at one blow / Unaided” settled the matter—whilethe possibility that there could be a battle—that God might, after all, be just the self-bestowedname of a boastful antagonist—is absolutely central to the rebels’ perspective, a perspectivethat determines both what will be seen by them as evidence and the conclusions they drawfrom it. This is no less true of the loyalists for whom evidence also emerges not in its ownindependent shape but in the shape given to it by the structure of their belief.In the course of the “battle,” both parties meet with events that one might think couldlead them to alter their basic commitments. The rebels for the first time experience pain andfear; but they respond by incorporating these new experiences into their sense of themselvesas battling heroically against steep odds in what Satan has earlier named “the strife of glory.”The strife is glorious because (in their eyes) it is a struggle for independence in the face of atyrant who demands their submission; and the fact that this tyrant has now been able toinvent pain is received by them not as evidence that they should desist, but as evidence thatconfirms their self-image—the odds are even worse than we thought and yet we bravely fighton—and strengthens their resolve—if we can endure this, we can endure anything.On the other side, the loyalists find themselves in a position that might “reasonably” becalled humiliating. They are in the field because God has told them that as a reward for theirloyalty they will have the honor and pleasure of driving the rebels “out from . . . bliss, / Intotheir place of punishment”; but as it turns out, God has so arranged it that the power of thetwo hosts is equal, which means that the loyalists cannot possibly do what he has orderedthem to do and promised they will be able to do. In fact, the entire battle has been stagedonly to provide God’s anointed Son with a dramatic entrance. When he appears on the third
An essay titled, "Why We Can't All Just Get Along."
Stanley Fish- 2 -day to claim all the honors, his first act is to say to the loyalists, “Thanks for the effort, boys,but this is a job for Superman.” They in turn respond not with disappointment or with a senseof injured merit, but (the verse tells us) with “joy”; not joy at being humiliated—
they don’t seeit that way
 —but joy at having been joined and praised by one to whom they have swornallegiance. What they could have easily seen as a reason to change masters, they contrive(that is, work) to see as a reason for continuing their fealty. They too can style this the strifeof glory, but they have managed to find their glory (and the maintenance of their faith) in awillingness to resign it to another.Note that both sides are exercising their reason and judgment; no one is “submittinguncritically.” The world continually throws up puzzles to be solved and everyone tries to solvethem; it is just that, given the radically divergent presuppositions of the two parties, eachengages in the task of reasoning by asking different questions: on the one hand, “since weare in the fight of our lives and the adversary seems to have a superior technology, what canwe do to neutralize it?” (the rebels proceed to invent gunpowder); on the other, “since God isGod and intends only good for us, how can we see this turn of events as further evidence ofhis goodness?”In choosing
question to ask, the loyalists follow (or, rather, anticipate) Augustine’scounsel to those who meet with phenomena apparently subversive of the true faith, either inthe Scriptures or in life: subject the phenomena “to diligent scrutiny until an interpretationcontributing to the reign of charity is produced” (
On Christian Doctrine
). That is, since youknow that in a world ordered by a just and benevolent God everything signifies his love for usand our obligation to love our fellow creatures for his sake, struggle with what the worldpresents to you until you are able to discern that signification. Knowing what the answer is inadvance does not mean that there is no work to be done, nothing to reason about; for theanswer is a general one whose application in particular circumstances is always an arduoustask. “To the pure and healthy internal eye,” declares Augustine, “He is everywhere.” Butsince our eyes are as yet far from pure, seeing him everywhere is not a foregone conclusionbut a continual challenge.To this analysis of the interdependence of faith (whether satanic or godly) and reason,Father Neuhaus poses objections that might be put in the form of two questions:1. Cannot reason be exercised before the first premise is in place? 2. In thecourse of reasoning cannot that first premise itself become the object of criticalattention?I would answer the first question by turning to the tract of Augustine’s that Neuhauscites against me. In
The Usefulness of Believing
, Augustine addresses his friend Honoratusin an effort to turn him away from the Manichean position on the relationship between faithand reason. The Manicheans, as Augustine reports them, dismiss as “superstition” the notionthat the Christian must be “by believing forearmed” before he can begin to reason; they urgeinstead that “no one . . . have faith without having first discussed and made clear the truth.”Augustine acknowledges the appeal (which he once felt) of this way of thinking, especially toyoung men intoxicated by the prospect of throwing off the shackles “of old wives fables” inorder to “drink in . . . the open and pure Truth.” But he identifies the man who detacheshimself from all authority with the fool who has nothing of wisdom inside him, butnevertheless sets out to determine, by reason alone, who is and is not a wise man. Since hedoes not begin with an inner understanding of that which he seeks he will be unable torecognize it. “For by no signs whatever can one recognize anything, unless he shall have
"Faith before Reason" – A Reply to Richard John Neuhaus- 3 -known that thing,” known it, that is,
in advance
. Someone who inquires after something (truth,wisdom, the good) without having internalized its identifying criteria is asking of signs thatthey tell him, all by themselves, what they are signs of; and since no sign can satisfy thatdemand—no sign can deliver up the norm by which to judge its own adequacy orsignificance—all signs, at least for this unanchored inquirer, will either signify nothing inparticular or (it is the same thing) signify anything at all.A nice example is provided by the Satan of Milton’s
Paradise Regained
, who at thebeginning of the poem assigns himself the task of figuring out just who this person is who hasbeen singled out by John the Baptist at the river Jordan and on whose head “a perfect dove”has descended. We know that Satan is in trouble when he immediately says of the dove“whate’er it meant.” If he doesn’t know what it means when he sees it, the gap between himand knowledge will not be filled in by additional information, for that information will itselfbecome drawn into the vortex of his uncertainty. For four books and thousands of lines Satanstalks the Son, subjecting him, as he says, to ever “narrower scrutiny,” and hazarding his“best conjectures” as to the nature of his adversary, but still finds himself, after all hissurveillance and sifting of evidence, “yet in doubt.”In the final scene he is still devising ways to “know . . . more” and announces, “Another
I must now begin.” This is the authentic voice of technological modernism, whichholds out the hope that the world will deliver its truth when the right techniques—instrumentsof disinterested observation—are applied to it; but no matter how close the phenomena arebrought to the doubting eye by sophisticated instruments of observation, that eye will seeonly its own doubt at once miniaturized and magnified. As Augustine puts it, “The fool is voidof wisdom, therefore he knows not wisdom, for he could not see it with his eyes.” Andmoreover, if he
see it, he would no longer be a fool because there would now besomething in him answerable to that which he seeks to know: “He cannot see it and not haveit, nor have it and be a fool.” Were Satan to succeed in coming to know who the Son truly ishe would no longer be Satan because it is his distance from that knowledge that defines himand makes him both what he is and what he isn’t, and what he is, at least until some momentof total conversion, is someone who says of the dove, “whate’er it meant” and will say thesame of anything—the Son, baptism, the Trinity, resurrection, God—whose significanceexceeds what is apparent on the empirical surface.Satan is the very type of those who would reason before they believe. Such a one,Augustine insists, has things exactly backward; if you begin to reason before the mind hasbeen cleared of error, your reasoning will be forever errant: “To wish to see the truth in orderto purge your soul, when as it is purged for the very purpose that you may see, is surelyperverse and preposterous.” Purge the soul first by orienting it to the appropriate object ofdesire, and
reason, for only then, says Augustine, are you “capable of receiving reason,”capable, that is, of engaging in reasoning that is not endlessly spinning its own wheels.Spinning your wheels is what you would be doing if you were to bracket your firstpremise and make it the object of critical attention. To be sure, this is something you mightdo, at least as an experiment, but where would you be if you did it? You would be nowhere—at sea amidst innumerable interpretative possibilities—and you could only proceed byinstalling some other premise in the position of first (usually while pretending not to do so).This is what the Manicheans do when they urge the “premature” believer to set aside hisconviction that what Christ “hath said is true, although it be supported by no reason” andbegin instead to reason toward Christ’s truth under their guidance. But, objects Augustine,that is to ask the believer to exchange the authority of his church and its traditions for theauthority, no less unsupported, of these self-appointed reasoners. For a Christian to “distrust

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->