Why is it wise to put aside all opinion about God?
Why is it, in the first place, that I’ve been calling this approach non-nihilistic? I’m an admirer of Gianni Vattimo’s philosophy but I’m not sure about how long will it take until we see a non-religious Christianity expanding in the world not only as common sense for the secular discourse but as common sense in Christian religious discourse as well. My guess is that our generation will not last that much. Nevertheless I’m convinced that the leading path towards that sort of new understanding of religion must be searched for.
In most Latin American countries we are currently facing a massive expansion of so called Protestant Christianity. As we all know, this is something occurring several centuries behind if compared with the same process in Europe. But the cultural and ideological circumstances in which the religious confrontation occurs in Latin America are much the same as the ones that obtained in Europe during the worst decades of the War of Religion. Fortunately enough the political conditions are much less menacing.
Nevertheless, people in the cities and in the land are already fighting each other for religious reasons and it seems to me that they will fight further and fiercely in the coming future. As you have probably noticed I’m only a philosopher, which means that I’m unable to give a serious sociological report of what is actually going on out there, but I do think that intellectuals researching in the field of religion may have a word to say in this worrying matter.
My proposal follows from what I’ve called in this paper the skeptic believe and from the possibilities I’ve seen in the last years in my country. It consists in the hope of reaching a mature understanding of religion based on four clear steps, which are:
Step 1. Reassume the traditional distinction between fides qua creditur (the faith by which it is believed) and fides quae creditur (the faith which is believed) as the stronghold of all religious discourse.
This is a goal you cannot reach by decree. So, in this respect I propose to display a strategy based in the steps that follow. For each of them there is the need of further research in the different fields concerned with religion, the ultimate goal being the reinforcing of fides qua and the weakening fides quae through inter-confessional practical education.
Step 2. Show in a practical convincing manner that all fides quae that is assumed within the frame of a counter-distinctive identity displays itself as true belief and therefore inevitably heads towards confrontation.
Common practice should be able to show what the meaning of sin in our days is. In fact, not avoiding the recognized seeds of confrontation is utterly opposed to the fides qua, the faith by which we ought to believe that God is Love. The problem is to let people recognize that such seeds take root in counter-distinctive identity.
Step 3. Convince rational believers (and true believers perhaps in a much subtle way) that the common goal of a culture of peace and dignity for the human person needs a new kind of education.
I’m convinced that the only education that can cope with the task of overcoming counter-distinctive identity and therefore religious confrontation is the one displayed along with the practical engagement of all confessions and secular social movements in sustainable development projects of a given region, the smaller the region the better.
Step 4. Give birth to human scale spaces of encounter, where all confessions as well as all secular social movements can engage and collaborate towards obtaining measurable impacts in sustainable development.
As we all well know, for hundreds of unexpected reasons all the efforts displayed under the sun towards sustainable development can be brushed out from earth and gone with the wind in just a few hours. Nevertheless if all our efforts under the sun have been done in fide qua creditur, I may assume that a joyful spirit would persist as an expression of Gods Absent Presence in the world.
