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.