From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Questionable Assertion[edit]

Current version of the article states that "Immanuel Kant, P. F. Strawson, Moltke Gram, T. E. Wilkerson, A. C. Grayling, Michael Dummett, and Jaakko Hintikka, among others, have discussed transcendental forms of thought in recent philosophical literature." This is highly unlikely--Immanuel Kant has been dead for over 200 years, and therefore has not discussed anything in recent philosophical literature. Can anyone guess what the relevant editor was attempting to say and clarify a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Sequitor Note[edit]

I added a few clarifying words to the three main points, and this note:

Note: This argument assumes that belief in the existence of God is equal to personal salvation, which is not a logically necessary equation, a biblically provable idea, nor a common Christian belief.

I am an evangelical Christian who believes in sola fide (it is presumed in sola gratia), but I have never known, nor heard of, any Christian who believes that belief in the existence of God is equal to personal salvation. Satan believes in the existence of God, but doesn't believe toward salvation, i.e. he doesn't trust in Christ as Lord. -- Chris 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: This argument assumes that belief in the existence of God is equal to personal salvation, which is not a logically necessary equation, a biblically provable idea, a tenant of Christian theology, nor a common Christian belief. True or false, the conclusion is therefore empty.

I have moved this note (this was the current version) to talk. The note seems to begin with the assumption that the syllogism presented assumes that faith in God's existence fulfils all the conditions necessary for salvation. The syllogism in fact assumes nothing of the kind; however, as far as I know all Christian theologies teach that people are saved by faith, and some by faith alone (see sola fide). Faith in the existence of the God revealed in Christianity is therefore indeed part of all Christian theologies. Such faith may not in fact yield the full fruits of salvation in any of them; but it is required by all of them. Faith is therefore necessary for salvation even if it is not sufficient for salvation; and "proof" of God's existence would indeed render moot this element of trust in revelation. Smerdis of Tlön 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Adams[edit]

I don't have the text with me, but I recall Douglas Adams' Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy contained a humorous diversion on the existence of God. Something about Man 'proved' a contradiction between faith and God. Anyone have this quote and is it significant enough to work into the earlier part of the article? 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is what you were refering to, and it has a link to fideism. I rather think the babel fish is worthy of mentioning. It is certinly a wonderful and amusing illustration of the logic dealt with in this article. 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

counter criticism[edit]

I removed counter-criticsm under criticism topic since on that section only criticism is represented. If people start to put counter criticism on criticism section (like often happens in wikipedia) then the whole thing is soon to become messed up and the section in question turns into some kind of dialectical controversory. Those claims that were represented as counter criticism can be put to some other section. Also the counter had POV problem since the text was written as counter criticsm was true (while criticism itself was represented in form "according to critics" etc. However, in Wikipedia we don't solve problems, we just represent different relevant, general opininons on matters -- 12:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that the "criticism" section is ready for prime time at all, myself. As it stands now it is weaselly and unattributed; who are these unnamed philosophers? We have named critics of fideism in the sections discussing the rejection of fideism by the Roman Catholic Church, and by specific Protestant apologists as well. If there are other critics of fideism, they should be named and referenced. Smerdis of Tlön 14:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it is not very good section right now, since it lacks sources, but at least it gives some kind of picture about what non-fideists usually think about fideism. And this general criticsm is probably even more important than views of some particular churches. The very basic criticsm seems to be that fideism itself (in the sense of not using reason while verifying religious statements) has no basis and this is what the section tries to explain right now. If more detailed critisms are represented, then it is fine that also this very general thing is told -- 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


i dont think Pascal's Wager is relevaant. anyone agree? Spencerk 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While perhaps relevant, I think that the reference to Pascal, as well as most of the information on this page, is very, very misleading. The theological attitude of fides quaerens intellectum, for instance, does not necessitate a rejection of fideism. Similarly, I think that it is wrong to classify St. Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church as "anti-fideists." It is one thing to say that the existence of God can be known by reason and another that God, in his entirety, can be known by reason. I believe that while St. Augustine and the Catholic Church would affirm the former position, both would reject the latter. Karamazov1 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

St Augustine[edit]

Could someone put the correct link for St. Augustine in the intro. There are two. This could reduce confusion if someone clicks on that link.-- (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost did it, however... I have tidied the punctuation and removed some redundancy. I have restored the link to Socrates removed by the pointless edit (as well as blanking the whole page) on 23 February 2008, but I have not restored the link to Augustine because I wonder if Spencerk who added it on 10 October 2007 had intended it to be Anselm rather than Augustine; compare the edit on 4 April 2008. Possibly Spencerk can clarify and link appropriately. Ergateesuk (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


"Martin Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical, and that man must reject reason and accept faith."
The subsequent quotations don't support this strong language which is almost POV. More measured phraseology may be appropriate.
I suggest: "Martin Luther taught that faith has priority over reason for matters which are beyond our reason."
There are more than two categories in such a debate: some things are reasonable, some things are contrary to reason, and some things are beyond our reason. Ergateesuk (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

The majority of this article is unreferenced and looks to be cobbled together and tangentially tied to fidism at best. It includes assertions that are not backed by reliable sources and much off topic material. Hardyplants (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

more than a year later, this is still very much the case. This article badly neeeds expert attention.--dab (𒁳) 13:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

William of Ockham[edit]

This article suggests that William of Ockham embraced fideism. This is based on three assertions by Ockham:

  • Theology is not a science
  • The Trinity is a logical contradiction
  • There is no evidence of purpose in the natural world

Should Ockham be mentioned here? I'm not sure how to integrate Ockham's theology with the rest of the Wikipedia article. Aardvark92 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


How is the term pronounced?

fid - ee - ism


fyde - ism

? (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Blaise Pascal.PNG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Blaise Pascal.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Two Points[edit]

Maybe this is splitting hairs but Tertullian is not considered a church father. The Catholics have a specific term for what he was but he isn't considered orthodox in the eyes of the Catholic church.

Secondly would Ghazali count as part of this? He mentions something like this concept in Muniq ad-Dalal (Deliverance from Error), his autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations Note that we don't adhere to the Catholic point of view in articles so that as long as reliable sources call Tertullian a "Father" we will as well. (e.g. ). When it comes to Ghazali, we will also need a source as speculation would be original research, which is disallowed. Thanks for offering to make this article better! —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Protestantism section[edit]

I read this article with interest. The poorly sourced section on protestantism however largely reads as an essay against calvinistic theology and many other forms of theology.

  • the hardening of the doctrine of justification by faith into harsh theories of moral depravity - how? I thought Luther was quite radical already.
  • Calvinists, for their part, rejected Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in favor of a more monist conception of God's sovereignty Is that true? At least the article on the Two kingdoms doctrine seems to contradict this statement.
  • and thus constructed metaphysical-like dogmas about subjects like double predestination, buttressing them with elaborate systems of logic - not sure what is meant here, but for example the Canons of Dort do not read as an "elaborate system of logic"
  • Meanwhile, some of the liberal strands within Protestantism developed affinities with Kantian and Hegelian theories about religion, with their respective dispositions against the Biblical rendering of God as simultaneously transcendent and immanent. With the collapse of this tension, philosophical idealism moved into the vacuum, making claims that the human mind could somehow appropriate the divine nature. Logic and determinism would, in time, calcify this movement also, which, unlike the orthodox, abandoned much of its Christian trappings in favor of an outright human-centered cosmology and ethics. This is hardly readable and I wonder what the relation is to the subject of the article.
  • At the end of the section, Karl Barth, Kierkegaard, neo-orthodoxy, liberation theology and postliberalism are all swept on the heap of fideism, without any sufficient motivation.

I propose that much of this section should be deleted. Josq (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Josq: 100% agreed. Do you feel like you can do this or do you want some help? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for the support! I removed most of the section, retaining the view of Luther, and placed things in chronological order. Josq (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)