What do you think?
Rate this book
Faith and Understanding
Beginning with Augustine, philosophers and theologians have felt it necessary not only to cogently articulate the content of the Christian faith but also to defend philosophically the reasonableness of faith itself. Faith and Understanding is the first book-length study of the "faith seeking understanding" program and the central issues that arise from it—the relation between faith and reason, the claims of natural theology, and the pursuit of the vision of God. / In Part One Paul Helm provides a general discussion of these themes, seeking both to contextualize the debate and to engage with contemporary philosophical discussion of the relation between faith, reason, and understanding. / Part Two contains five case studies that illustrate the work of seminal figures in the tradition. They include treatments of Augustine on time and creation, Anselm on the ontological argument and the necessity of the atonement, Jonathan Edwards on the nature of personal identity, and John Calvin and the sensus divinitatis, focusing on the way in which Calvin has been appealed to by contemporary Reformed epistemology. / Providing a modern treatment of an abiding theme in the philosophy of religion, this book is a clearly written introduction to the subject.
- GenresPhilosophyTheology
224 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1997
1 person is currently reading
30 people want to read
About the author
Paul Helm
73 books15 followersPaul Helm teached philosophy at the University of Liverpool before becoming Professor of the History and Philosophy of Religion at King s College, London (1993-2000).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 15, 2018
This book isn’t a smooth narrative, as I am not always sure how each chapter connected with the others. With that said, Helm anticipates some of the “Narrative ethics” fads and communal epistemology, and brings several pointed rejoinders to them. And the chapter on Jonathan Edwards is an analytical feast.
Understanding and Believing
Helm’s interlocutor is D.Z. Phillips. The main is relatively unfamiliar, but Phillips anticipated the current craze about communal epistemologies. As Helm puts it, “For Phillips religion is essentially a practice or set of practices, a way of life, and the beliefs that are religious are identified by such practices, and can only be understood in relation to, this form of life” (Helm 65). This is almost word for word the theology of James K. A. Smith.
So what is the problem with it? We can try to list several:
1) It is impossible to critique any other position, as one would necessarily be outside that position and not sharing in its liturgical practices.
2) We do not have so much a religion, but a set of religious practices.
2.1) What about prayer? This is the most basic of religious practices. Yet, as Helm notes, could we even expect an answer to prayer, since that would involve empirical issues (69ff)? Indeed, petitionary prayer “connects the activity and value of religion with how things go.”
Edwards on Original Sin
Edwards raises the problem of identity through time.
1. Temporal part: an individual thing which exists only for a moment.
2. Personal identity for Locke: principle of consciousness.
JE, however, will advance several radical claims: “nothing exists for more than a moment” (Helm 157). Edwards writes, “The existence of created substances, in each successive moment, must be the effect of the immediate agency, will, and power of God” (Edwards, Original Sin, 400).
Original Sin
3. “A series of momentary parts, qualitatively similar in important respects, is treated by ourselves and God as if it were numerically one thing” (Helm 163).
The payoff, if at a steep price, is obvious: God can count us guilty for Adam’s sin because in some way (??) we are identical with Adam. As it stands, though, this argument won’t work. JE needs to posit an identity without collapsing me into Adam. But before we prove that, JE will make another claim:
4. God recreated x each moment. JE might not be saying this. It is a stronger version of (2) above, as he says an “antecedent existence is nothing,” which means my continuing existence isn’t because of my prior moment’s existence.
3*. Adam is constituted the root of the human race by virtue of a real union with the world of mankind (Helm 169). JE can now say that there is a real union, a real imputation which isn’t a legal fiction, yet we aren’t pantheistically connected.
Unfortunately, I think JE paid too high a price. He must surrender either his view of Original Sin or his view of the Will. In the latter he said that each moment’s prior state was the cause of the next state. But here he seems to say that the antecedent cause has no real existence. If it doesn’t, then it can’t cause the next state, pace Freedom of the Will.
Oliver Crisp has raised yet a bigger problem: if God is recreating me each moment, and I am a sinful human, then is God creating evil and sin each moment?
But even with these problems, this was a fine chapter and a fine book.
Understanding and Believing
Helm’s interlocutor is D.Z. Phillips. The main is relatively unfamiliar, but Phillips anticipated the current craze about communal epistemologies. As Helm puts it, “For Phillips religion is essentially a practice or set of practices, a way of life, and the beliefs that are religious are identified by such practices, and can only be understood in relation to, this form of life” (Helm 65). This is almost word for word the theology of James K. A. Smith.
So what is the problem with it? We can try to list several:
1) It is impossible to critique any other position, as one would necessarily be outside that position and not sharing in its liturgical practices.
2) We do not have so much a religion, but a set of religious practices.
2.1) What about prayer? This is the most basic of religious practices. Yet, as Helm notes, could we even expect an answer to prayer, since that would involve empirical issues (69ff)? Indeed, petitionary prayer “connects the activity and value of religion with how things go.”
Edwards on Original Sin
Edwards raises the problem of identity through time.
1. Temporal part: an individual thing which exists only for a moment.
2. Personal identity for Locke: principle of consciousness.
JE, however, will advance several radical claims: “nothing exists for more than a moment” (Helm 157). Edwards writes, “The existence of created substances, in each successive moment, must be the effect of the immediate agency, will, and power of God” (Edwards, Original Sin, 400).
Original Sin
3. “A series of momentary parts, qualitatively similar in important respects, is treated by ourselves and God as if it were numerically one thing” (Helm 163).
The payoff, if at a steep price, is obvious: God can count us guilty for Adam’s sin because in some way (??) we are identical with Adam. As it stands, though, this argument won’t work. JE needs to posit an identity without collapsing me into Adam. But before we prove that, JE will make another claim:
4. God recreated x each moment. JE might not be saying this. It is a stronger version of (2) above, as he says an “antecedent existence is nothing,” which means my continuing existence isn’t because of my prior moment’s existence.
3*. Adam is constituted the root of the human race by virtue of a real union with the world of mankind (Helm 169). JE can now say that there is a real union, a real imputation which isn’t a legal fiction, yet we aren’t pantheistically connected.
Unfortunately, I think JE paid too high a price. He must surrender either his view of Original Sin or his view of the Will. In the latter he said that each moment’s prior state was the cause of the next state. But here he seems to say that the antecedent cause has no real existence. If it doesn’t, then it can’t cause the next state, pace Freedom of the Will.
Oliver Crisp has raised yet a bigger problem: if God is recreating me each moment, and I am a sinful human, then is God creating evil and sin each moment?
But even with these problems, this was a fine chapter and a fine book.
October 18, 2021
Helm begins by setting out some different ways that the difference between faith and understanding can be categorised. He then outlines some different traditions: the faith seeking understanding tradition, a rationalist tradition, and a conflict tradition. These in turn see: reason as a tool of faith with faith as the first step to understanding, reason as the gatekeeper of faith, and reason as an enemy to faith.
Helm’s analysis of the five case studies are interesting and fair to the subject matter, and he is willing to criticise where he thinks it is necessary. I sort of wish he didn’t talk about Reformed Epistemology. Every book in this series has mentioned it at least once, it must have been very popular in the 1990s!
This first half of this book is probably worth it if you are interested in how the interaction between faith and reason can be thought about. Other than that, it is actually quite a niche philosophy book and I’d recommend the others in the series first (God, Reason & Theistic Proofs, and Faith Beyond Reason).
Helm’s analysis of the five case studies are interesting and fair to the subject matter, and he is willing to criticise where he thinks it is necessary. I sort of wish he didn’t talk about Reformed Epistemology. Every book in this series has mentioned it at least once, it must have been very popular in the 1990s!
This first half of this book is probably worth it if you are interested in how the interaction between faith and reason can be thought about. Other than that, it is actually quite a niche philosophy book and I’d recommend the others in the series first (God, Reason & Theistic Proofs, and Faith Beyond Reason).
November 26, 2024
It is not an easy read, and it can be technical at times (although Helm usually offers good explanations), but it is really interesting project. He begins by explaining the faith seeking understanding tradition, which is not monolithic, and then illustrates various approaches to it using 5 case studies:
1) Augustine on Time and Creation,
2) Anselm on The Proslogion,
3) Anselm on The Incarnation,
4) Edwards on Original Sin,
5) Calvin on the sensus divinatus.
The subject of these case studies are fascinating in their own right. I only wish he included Blaise Pascal!
If you are interested in this topic (the relationship between faith and reason) this is not where I would start, but I would definitely recommend it to the initiated. And I look forward to reading Faith With Reason by the same author on the same subject.
P.S. Helm's book on The Doctrine of Providence in the Contours of Christian Theology series is the best I have ever read. He is great on Calvin too.
1) Augustine on Time and Creation,
2) Anselm on The Proslogion,
3) Anselm on The Incarnation,
4) Edwards on Original Sin,
5) Calvin on the sensus divinatus.
The subject of these case studies are fascinating in their own right. I only wish he included Blaise Pascal!
If you are interested in this topic (the relationship between faith and reason) this is not where I would start, but I would definitely recommend it to the initiated. And I look forward to reading Faith With Reason by the same author on the same subject.
P.S. Helm's book on The Doctrine of Providence in the Contours of Christian Theology series is the best I have ever read. He is great on Calvin too.
Want to read
May 29, 2024Paul Helm recommended by David Anderson on Faith & Reason podcast.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews