.jpg)
Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University College, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 21, No. 4. April 23, 1958
Naive
Naive
Sir,
—As a Catholic I wish to disassociate myself entirely from the bigoted, highly personal, and extraordinarily naive interpretation of Christian belief given in your editorial of 27/3/58.
In the first place the terminology is unsound. "The testimony of history"—what does this mean? The testimony of others? (Historians have written a frightful lot of tripe.) ... Or the pronouncement of some oracle that floats through the passage of time and mysteriously records events? If so, my faith is as little based "on the testimony of history" as it is "upon the discoveries of archaeology." The Christian faith, thanks be to God, has a far more rational foundation than that.
Secondly, the proposition that a Christian can have "only" one of two "opposed" foundations, viz., either rational or non-rational, is surely the most manifest heresy as well as the most arbitrary dogmatism. Man is not so self-sufficient that he can concoct a supernatural faith from the purely rational foundations of his own reason, and it is an arrogant pride to claim he can. Even if, after the manner of Boling-broke, one made the attempt, one could never accept such a rational fiction, that is submit oneself to it, without taking some kind of "plunge in the dark"—sign a blank cheque of commitment. The living experience of the act of faith (and surely "T.J.K." should at least have heard that "without faith it is impossible to please God"—Heb. XI, 6) is a great mystery. By its very nature it is supranational. (C.f. the constitution "Dei Filius" of the Vatican Council, placet 24/4/1870.) It seems that there are more rationalists around than "T.J.K." would like the testimony of statistical evidence to lead one to believe.
The labelling of non-rational foundations of faith as "a naive sort of belief", "a sort of nonsense", "childish", consisting of "strings of empty phrases" is irredeemably dotty and nothing short of sheer blind and credulous bigotry. It is sure to offend any who (unfortunately) in all sincerity entertain very real doubts abouts the validity of Christianity's rational foundations. Shame! Elementary courtesy should surely restrain one from entering the inviolable sanctuary of other men's consciences and pronouncing so rash and so rude a judgment.
Lastly, I think that to refer to the bodily remains of the dead (temporarily-vacated temples of the Holy Ghost) as "a few old bones", and to campaign in the name of Christianity for the defence of alcohol and betting and for less silent prayer in favour of more social activities in the materialistic society of which this university forms part—all this is a sure sign of the perversions to which notions of a purely rational Christianity necessarily lead.
In future editorials, I beg of you: more sympathy, more logic, and a generous measure of a humble and healthy tolerance.
—B. G. Grogan
[Mr. Grogan has made a good point in demonstrating the inadequacy of my classification of "faith". There are obviously two possible meanings of this word "faith" in this particular context. There is, firstly, as Mr. Grogan points out, that type of "faith" which can come within the classification of rational in so far as it produces a compelling effect on the intellect in the same manner as evidence brought forward by historical and archaeological research. The effect of this supernatural aid is, I think, to raise the degree of a believer's certitude from one based upon a balance of probabilities in favour of Christianity to a certitude which recognises the truths of Christianity as being beyond all reasonable doubt. But this is not in conflict with reason as it produces the same persuasive effect on the intellect as reasoned argument. Certainly, too, what is believed on such grounds cannot in any way conflict with reason.
This in no way derogates from the main point of my argument. There is nonetheless a naive sort of belief which is in no way supernatural and supra-rational but rather is a superstitious practice based upon pure sentiment and emotion. This is the sort of religious approach that Belloc attributes to the Frenchman, Paschall, and whole-heartedly condemns. This is the "leap-in-the-dark" kind of belief.—Editor.]