Religions, (or more theographically, faiths) tend to adopt the ONE TRUE WAY approach, as a function of how much faith their adherents profess, that is: the larger the aggregate congregation, the greater their level of confidence, or some might say, the greater their dogmatism (or more secularly, pride-of-authorship). Now, then again, we have a relatively new pope who has made some pronouncements which may have given his churchmen and/or women heartburn. Of course, it is only one church. But it has a pretty large and loyal following. The question raised concerning intellectual humility and religious faith is more interesting to me. These two states of consciousness seem to be irreconcilable. They are, as a practical matter, separate domains, with separate realities. And, moreover, they appear factually unrelated to each other, and therefore, in no need of reconciliation. Dr. Hook's book sounds interesting, until one reads the final two words of the title, which may beg the question: Just who among the diverse identities are in therapy, the intellectuals, or the faithful?

I apologize for 'theographically'. It is just that I cannot compare religions to faiths with any level of comfort. Theology begins with belief(s) associated with the existence, and recognition, of a supreme being. Usually these belief systems at first label themselves as faiths. Over time and cultural change, faiths tend to be transformed into religions---and therewith, things get lost in translation. In other words, faith begins within the hearts of a few and is transformed by the intentions of a multitude. These transformations I have seen for myself

Certainly it is possible to have faith and humility. But not all flavors of faith allow this. Some are non compromising with respect to belief and openly intolerant to other faiths. This was the flavor discussed here for the most part.

I join the caller who felt the discussion too Abrahamic. Then bringing Lincoln in was distracting. Humility can itself be a tenet of faith. Joshua Hook's Lutheran mentors who encouraged him to find his own truth are an example.

The use of the term 'lens' is loaded. Dr. Hook used that multiple times. There is nothing visual about faith or humility in any context. Using models and words like this is careless and unhelpful.

World view is constructed - if we disagree on that well that is a different show. Joshua got a bit into that when he brushed on scripture and culture. Construction itself negates any definite borders between faith and humility.

Science is a faith. It legitimates our world. Too many proponents of science decry religious truth without really offering up their own faith in data and Occam's razor. These "scientists" are the least humble and uncompromising in my experience.

This was a fairly light show... I'm not sure if I got any progress from it. Personal and relational humility are meaningless in a world of social animals like human beings.

I miss Harold... it is good to see his comments on these repeat shows. For years his straight up comments, almost always immediate were personal and searching. RIP Harold.

Gone, but not forgotten? Thanks for the kind words, Tim. My reading and writing have kept me busy this past year. They have also helped my sanity. I think. Whenever I consider the matters of faith and religion, i remember John Dewey. In one of his works---possibly, How We Think---Dewey said beliefs were 'personal affairs', personal affairs were 'adventures' and adventures were ' shady'. I think he was not far wrong in this assessment. Thing is, beliefs, even faith, can change over time and world wear.
The late Chris Hitchens said religion poisons everything. Well, it can if its' faithful allow that to transpire.. Faithful folks have to take good with bad. That is a hard road, at best. Best to all @ Philosophy Talk and thanks for allowing my participation.

I suppose that my view on ecclesiastical matters is best expressed as agnostic. Hitchens' position, as mentioned in my previous comment, was, I think, correct in principle. Belief, in a narrow sense, is for people who fear facing reality head on. This parallels nicely with religious doctrine and dogma which preaches the powerlessness of human beings in the sight of an almighty deity. Reality is scary: all those contradictions and unexplainable circumstances. Better to believe and put one's faith in a something which requires only love and devotion. Oh, and a few dollars to keep the faith rolling. Now understand this: i do get the good that religions/faiths may do. Despots are likewise cognizant of this, which is why they have rejected such as 'opiates of the people'. It sounds so sinister. But a fact remains. There is a price to pay for the solace of faithfulness. And that,as a practical matter, is what the Church is counting on.

I have mentioned the late Christopher Hitchens and John Dewey, in connection with the notion of belief. Both men were skeptics when it came to belief, Dewey, diplomatic; Hitchens, radically atheistic. What a difference time ( and mass/popular culture) make. If you did not think these things were relevant in Dewey's time, please be advised: they have been here far longer. Tribalism, popularized by native American culture, is resurgent, while native Americans, what is left of them, try to assimilate and become more like their exterminators. I won't try to analyse this. It is too hard because of a myriad of complexities. But, this is where we are.I don't care what you believe. That, according to Dewey, is a personal affair... the poison is relative, similar to the current Church position.
Circularity? Yup.

Have worked on and mostly finished an essay/article on truth. The second part of that paper features some 'tenets', postulated as an overall description of what is true versus what is not, an example: opinions may or may not be true;the same may hold for beliefs. What the tenets boil down to is this: in order for a thing to be true, it needs to contain underlying proof(s), not merely the support of those who SAY it is so. There are many dogmas and doctrines to choose from in the world. People largely choose these because they feel right or meet some perceived ethical/moral criteria. This choosing, therefore, falls into a category of preference, something on the order of Davidson's propositional attitudes. But, here's the rub: just because someone (or a group of someones) chooses to believe dogma or doctrine, that does not make it true for everyone not so inclined.

There is a lot of this going on. Always has been. Seems likely, IMHO, there is much more of it now. Could that be a reason for the abundance of dissent and controversy encountered today? I think so.