Front PageJosef Pieper and Faith
Submitted by OpenJoe on Sat, 03/10/2007 - 00:36. faith Josef Pieper philosophy
Several years ago, I went one Saturday morning to the best Catholic bookstore in town and bought Faith Hope Love by the German Thomist philosopher Josef Pieper. He had been recommended by a speaker/author I respected, so I was well primed to begin his book.
This book changed my life by opening my mind and heart to new possibilities and also by convicting me of shortcomings in my belief system and actions.
In the first section "On Faith" he begins by defining and then by describing the general faith that is common to all humanity, the natural faith which all human beings use in their lives. Ordinary believing that goes on every day because we find other people trustworthy. Conversely, disbelieving when we find evidence that those folks are not trustworthy.
He distinguishes belief from knowledge. If we know a matter by direct evidence then belief is moot as there is no necessity for it. In other words, we don't have to believe, we know. There are lots of other ramifications of course, but basically that's natural faith.
Now he starts with religious faith by asserting that religious faith is not just a further development of "belief in general". Religious faith has another step to it.
"The obstacle that must be leaped rather than climbed consists in the difficulty of understanding why man's nature and situation should be such that he cannot make do with what is naturally accessible to him. Why should man be dependent upon information that he himself could never find and that, even if found, is not susceptible to rational examination?"
With this I think he is describing the problem plagues everyone, believers and unbelievers. It tends to drive some folks further away from religious faith while at the same time it thornily rubs raw the tender flesh of even the strongest believers. Then Pieper goes on referring to the Biblical witness and the God behind it:
We are not only summoned to accept as real and true a set of facts that we can in no way examine; we are also referred to a witness who never meets us directly, as do our human interlocutors, but who, nevertheless, demands of us the kind of absolute and unconditional assent that we are prepared to give in no other case.
I think that last phrase is very telling. It surprised me; I didn't expect it. I expected "unconditional assent that we are not prepared to give." But instead it is this: "that we are prepared to give in no other case." That surprised me because I agreed with it. It's like a shocking truth. Religious faith or responsible belief in God is the only case in which people will commit themselves so completely, upon the foundation of such "empirically impossible" evidence.
And, not only will people make this leap - but they will run many thirsty miles barefoot to even come close to the place where the gap is.
Not only that, but I think most would agree the leaping place in our lives moves repeatedly, unbeknownst to us it appears again and again, in different times and places. Calling us to greater and more loving, hoping faith. And we find nothing else so fulfilling.
Now, I'll just go ahead a few pages to stir the pot a little more. Talking about God being a Person, capable of communication, who wants to reveal Himself to us--
If God is conceived as a personal Being, as a Someone rather than a Something, and a Someone who can speak, then there is no safety from—revelation.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Demand from all sides
Submitted by OpenJoe on Sat, 03/10/2007 - 20:56.
Thanks Reido. I myself have definitely felt the pain of "having been taken off the breast too soon," so to speak. Everyone has - taking the metaphor broadly. But I think our hunger and thirst are much deeper, or existential, if I'm using that word right. Sometimes I actually feel angry at God for creating me with such an insatiable thirst for more than I have, or ever could have (seemingly).
But when it gets down to brass tacks, I think the demand is on both (or all) sides. I demand of myself that I should believe, just as much as the Other demands that I believe. I think it would have to be that way in order for the twain to meet.
One thing though, I perceive God's demand on us to be of the utmost gentlemanly type of demand. A just and totally correct demand. After all God, if He exists, has the right to demand what He will. On the other hand, the demand on me by me is not so gentlemanly. I am not easy on myself, not always kind to myself. I would like to demandingly manipulate myself into being more like the picture of myself I have imagined, rather than just echoing in my own soul God's gentlemanly demand.
To tell you the truth, just a few years ago I bristled when my missionary friend told me his greatest desire was to obey God. I didn't realize it could be so self-fulfilling. I didn't realize it is like obeying myself, if you don't indict me for something or 'nother for saying that. I don't think you will.
Anyway, I appreciate that you guys are actually reading, comprehending and responding to what I'm writing. That is fulfilling to me. I feel I am a highly disorganized writer and I appreciate your patience.
About Josef Pieper: he was a Thomist philosopher, meaning he was an scholar of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, from the 12th century. I have never had the patience to delve into Aquinas, or anyone really from that far back. So I get my "Thomism", if there's such a thing, from later teachers. I'm thankful for the Catholic scholars and meditative writers because they have stretched my soul far larger than it would otherwise have been.
See you. Joe
» reply
Natural Faith
Submitted by bill on Sat, 03/10/2007 - 21:31.
OpenJoe wrote: In the first section "On Faith" he begins by defining and then by describing the general faith that is common to all humanity, the natural faith which all human beings use in their lives. Ordinary believing that goes on every day because we find other people trustworthy. Conversely, disbelieving when we find evidence that those folks are not trustworthy.
Joe,
I'd like to hear more of this "natural faith." This is something that seems obvious to me but brushed aside by the scientism that Aristotelianism brings. So, I'm terribly confused.
Faith seems to me a natural part of human consciousness that spans the gap between what we know and what we need to know to make the next step in daily life. I'm hoping that this is what Pieper is referring to.
However, it's relatively late, since the time changes tomorrow, so I'll cut it short probably making little sense. BTW, do you find time changes strange since the world really gets on the same way anyway and many are confused for at least two weeks as their bodies get accustomed to the new timing. Balderdash!
bill
» reply
Natural, as opposed to religious
Submitted by OpenJoe on Sat, 03/10/2007 - 22:19.
Sorry, I really thought natural faith was a lot of what you were talking about. I think I didn't read enough of your writing, plus some of your sources.
I think natural faith is like when a witness in a trial says, 'I saw the white Lincoln Continental speeding north on highway 109 at close to 1:15 PMi'. The witness is believed if there is nothing to impeach their testimony. The statement becomes a legal fact. It's like that, more or less, with ordinary people doing ordinary things.
Religious faith, on the other hand, is based on evidence that is farther removed from the possibility of empirical proof.
One amazing thing that Josef Pieper says, and I agree, is that the receptivity we have to God is not supernatural or unnatural, but it is according to, and in harmony with our very own proper nature. I'm not trying to "dis" the new birth and its necessity, but it seems the Catholics (or some of them, anyway) traditionally had a higher view of the potential of mankind's innate nature and it seems to me there is truth in that.
» reply
Good point Joe
Submitted by Arti Swede on Sat, 03/10/2007 - 22:58.
Sometimes what we "dis" unnecessarily is human nature itself because of the sin problem. It's human nature through which God works and somehow even the mundane can be transcendent: natural faith.
» reply
Sorry It's Just Me
Submitted by bill on Sun, 03/11/2007 - 08:31.
Joe,
Please don't think that I'm disagreeing or am not thrilled that you put this together. This is a subject of regular misunderstanding because, Faith, I believe is either undefinable or very difficult to define because of its deeply spiritual nature that puts it beyond the scope of our language. The comment I wrote was just a plea for more. Unfortunately, I don't often put thoughts out in socially smooth ways. I apologize deeply for that. Really, I wish I could take back my comment.
It's not a problem with your approach or with natural faith at all. The difficulty I'm having is in conjuring up something useful to add to the discussion started by your post when I can't get my hyper-focus off the five-senses concept that I "perceive" to come from anything marked as Aristotelian, etc. So, I'm not complaining about anything that you wrote or that Pieper wrote, I'm really just thinking out loud about my own struggles in this regard. It's all in my head.
Edited out duplicate paragraph
Actually, I have been struggling to put into words what I perceive as a natural faith, that is something natural to human beings. You have done that. I read your post through several times. And I hoped to get some elaboration. I apologize again for my clumsy language, and to all others that I may have offended in the same way.
bill
» reply
Over my head
Submitted by OpenJoe on Sun, 03/11/2007 - 21:52.
Hello Bill, Reido, Arti and others. I guess I've tried to write over my head. Like Ernest T. Bass trying to impress the Mistress of the finishing school. So let me see if I can dig my way out in plain language.
Josef Pieper wrote in German. He used the word Glaube (I'm told) which is in English faith or belief, fides in Latin. The translator used belief all the way through. Now belief means to believe someone and to believe something. I think the word faith in English can fly solo without a stated object but belief cannot. Oftentimes we believe the person, or witness, because the content of their message sounds true; sometimes we believe the content because the witness sounds true, or trustworthy.
Those of us who are New Testament people have the written content from these witnesses - the gospels. These are more in line with the witnesses in a court of law, in my view. If we consider them trustworthy, not having been effectively impeached, we accept what they say because they say they witnessed these things. Also the content of the message of the gospels rings true in the hearts and minds of billions of human beings down through the ages to the present. So we believe someone and something not immediately touchable by us, but not too far removed either.
Now believing God directly is even farther removed. Because of the fact that the person who speaks to us (God) is invisible and also, quite frankly, inaudible. And because the content of the message He communicates to us is, for the most part, empirically unverifiable, at least at the point in time we receive it. So we have the witness and the content removed from us to the nth degree, after a manner of speaking.
I don't really know much about the dynamics of how other religious believers receive the messages of their holy books, but I do know in Christianity it is possible, and in fact it is common, for folks to give mental assent to the gospel message without experiencing any deeper affect. In other words, a head religion without the heart. So, because of this, we have all heard stories of people who have pastored churches for twenty years, suddenly saying they have just been born again. They are saying they previously practiced a form of religion for many years without believing deeply in the content or the God of that religion. These converts always credit the direct action of God, through the Holy Spirit, on their inner person. Again, this would be communication (or communion) with the invisible, inaudible deity.
Gee whiz, guys. I hope you don't mind me practising my writing on you. I'm not sure if I am saying anything at all that will address Bill's stated confusion. To tell the truth, I'm not sure if I really believe he is that confused, or if he is just trying to encourage me to press in. Well, I'll tell ya Bill, I am seriously confused and trying to write my way out of it.
Bill, I'm not sure why you said Aristotelian. .... [google interlude] I take it back. I realize now Aquinas represented a thread in the revival of the teachings Aristotle. But I'm not what the practical implications of that are.
Back to the invisible, inaudible one. When we by faith listen to and believe God, treasuring and integrating into our lives the message He brings, I think one could say that is supernatural. But it is a kind of supernatural that really is quite natural.
» reply
Thanks for the elaboration
Submitted by bill on Mon, 03/12/2007 - 16:13.
Joe,
Thanks very much for a great elaboration. I apologize for taking so long to respond. We have a significant crisis going on in our family church thingy, which I will blog about soon, and my head has been elsewhere.
Also, you did me a great favor by reminding me that throwing around terms like “Aristotelian” is counter-productive to good communication. But, it also proves my point made earlier that “I don't often put thoughts out in socially smooth ways.” Sorry about that. I'm very thankful to you for reminding me to remember where I am, and to not talk like an expert when I'm not one.
Anyway, I understand your point better now and I'd like to say more but will have to do so later.
bill
» reply
Natural Revelation
Submitted by reido on Mon, 03/12/2007 - 20:51.
Joe
What you have said about Pieper's definition of faith fits very closely with Smith's study of the early language -- especially where he differentiates belief and believing. This took awhile to sink in with me since my early training was a very rational objectivist approach that was pattern based. They call it Restoration if you are familiar with pattern based churches. The effect was more like brainwashing in that it made it near impossible to "see" anything other than what the church was dictating as Truth.
That's a long story, but you will see from reading some of the archived posts that we have struggled sometimes for words (that may not be apparent since it probably looks like we have a lot of them). Sometimes a person can illuminate a concept much better than I have been able to. This is not a curse -- it is like a breath of fresh air. Your use of the word "natural" is very comfortable to me; Jesus often appealed to life to teach Life -- and I don't mean heaven/hell. "The wind blows where it wills" is a passage that keeps bringing me to think of Spirit in life and how uncomplicated this can be.
I hope you grow as comfortable here as you would sipping a cup of coffee with friends.
reido
» reply
Faith Demands?
Joe
I liked it.
His use of the word "demands" got my attention. I think I know what he means, but have been unable to explain this to atheist friends. To them, faith is more like believing in Santa Claus (in most cases I would agree).
This magnetism -- is it real or a desire grown out of being taken off breast milk too soon ( speaking from the atheist point of view)? Maybe it depends on one's definition of Reality, but I consider it a great part of life.
reido