well…yeah… maybe… and no, not necessarily…
two persons have now asked, so i’ll start trying to put forth my best neophyte answer now…
the question i think is not so easily answerable. i mean, on the one extreme, one can adhere to a type of rational dogmatism; and on the other, one can stay in the clouds of utopian idealism. i think it requires some mitigation though. too often we find deceit on both ends of the spectrum…
first let’s take the strict rationalism of the intellectuals who see themselves as too “reasoned” to subscribe to any type of religious faith. a chief modern exponent in this camp, for example, is the everywhere-present Richard Dawkins, who lately seems to serve as the chief cleric for atheism. he’s careful (like theorists of the past like David Hume, Tylor and Freud) to trace monotheistic belief to the polytheism of the ancients; in essence saying that religious faith is but “intellectual” human concoction, and though it has progressed a bit (to monotheism, like Christianity and Judaism, in particular) as humans have, in the end it’s still absurd. to counter-act this then religious thinkers through the times have responded by assigning to themselves careful designations as they grow uncomfortable with the discoveries of the “science of religion,” such as deists (i believe god is, but this god has done his/her work already and doesn’t bother now to interfere in the natural processes of the universe), dy(i)theist (who believe in two equally antagonistic supernatural powers at work [good and evil]), atheists (no gods) and agnostics (which is a convenient halfway, though intellectually honest, position that says since god’s existence is unverifiable, scientifically considering, we choose to say we don’t know).
and so the danger on this side is that many as they acquire knowledge and live a cloistered life, often far apart from the concrete experiences that make religious faith so poignant, they begin to gain an over-confidence in the self-possession and mental ascendancy of a learned few and, further, think it appropriate to then denigrate, reduce our faith to mere “superstition…”….so one sees from anthropological, psychological, social and philosophical perspectives the many humanistic explanations on why peoples and individuals throughout history appeal to invisible forces to explain the unexplainable…
but against these clerics of modernity, many have sought to defend religious belief, for instance, Erasmus (namely, speaking of Christianity now) of old tried to show how god was present, even in the pagan literature of the 16th century (much to the chagrin of the Reformers). in addition, there are those few, such as Cornel West, Wallace Best and the like who combat the “principalities in higher places” now, if you will…
problem is most of us in our churches aren’t too conversant with some of the hostilities that exists between these folk…and most of us (especially in our beloved Black Church) suffer from fulminations against intellectualism as the greatest danger to faith by those who fear that all intellectualism is antithetical to faith…but it doesn’t have to be…though we should be careful…you can certainly think and still have a vigorous faith….
i’d just say this (recalling the wisdom of Solomon): that the acquisition of more knowledge about these subjects does bring with it more pains to reconcile it with a faith that should be so simple for us…for instance, the studious one who wants to maintain faith has to grapple with some complex issues as well—particularly as they relate to the nature of God, the nature of sacred texts, human infallibility (a most formidable enemy to the Catholics and the Pope), and the nature of prayer (do we believe it to be so potent because we serve an interventionist God?)
well, in many ways critically appropriating protects against credulousness—being an over-enthusiastic “amen” person to whatever a person says in the name of god…and on the other, one can become this incurable skeptic—tying every misfortune or unrealized hope on the non-existence of a benevolent Deity…
to sum, for now, lemme jus’ say that yes, it could undermine one who is too amenable to being “carried away” by every good-sounding or even reasoned argument one way or the other
…the key to the faith-life is revelatory experiences, meaning how I have come to know my god through experiences that are congruent with how I discern it to be god in contexts, and recordings about the interior lives of others.
the answer is no, if being firmly rooted, meaning that the Christ has laid hold of me such that no matter what i encounter my belief says that genuine faith can’t be expunged by any theory or doctrine, then learning more may be beneficial even if it requires more mental exertion than what was required erstwhile…
the answer is maybe…for fear of being carried away motivates some “authorities” to become tyrannical with faith and non-tolerant of any views that may challenge one’s weakness to articulate such strong spiritual resoluteness in the first place (which in my opinion promotes spiritual stagnation)…
well, i’ll have to revisit this later, i’m typing too fast and realize that, because of that, i may be complicating the dicussion all the more… i’ll bring this to a simpler close later when I can think…right now it’s too tortuous…
but lemme now as simply as possible pray my god for wisdom for the “saints” on Sunday… (smiles). besides, i need to leave this place and go home…
peace
me
