 | The topic of this articlemay not meet Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citingreliable secondary sources that areindependent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to bemerged,redirected, ordeleted. Find sources: "Theological veto" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Theological veto" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Thetheological veto is theconcept inphilosophy of religion thatphilosophy andlogic are impious and thatGod, notreason, issovereign.[1][page needed] This concept is held as true by sometheists, especiallyreligious fundamentalists.
The idea is derived from a belief that mankind isdepraved, and itsintellect is a flawed product of thisfallenness. In this viewconversion, not reason, is the way to the truth;preaching, notargument, is the way topersuade; andgrace, notevidence is the waybelief is confirmed. In this view, natural reason is so profoundly hostile to the divine that holding it abovefaith is tantamount to worshiping a sinful creature as anidol. Even the use ofreason on behalf of faith is rejected under the theological veto, as it shows faithlessness. It presupposes by practice that faith can be benefited by reason.
An early use of the phrase is reported from a 1925 critique of opponents ofevolution: "They meet the accumulating evidences of the descent of man with a theological veto. They set the limit to science by the quotation of a verse from the creation legend "Genesis.""[2]
There are several reasons put forth by those who reject the theological veto. One way to reject the theological veto is to assert that one cannot isolate reason from faith. Intelligible use of language is claimed to commit one toconsistency, so to reject reason is to refuse to make sense. This argument asserts that even the theological veto itself must be consistent with itself and inconsistent with reason. Another way the theological veto is rejected is to assert that rejection of critical control over one's beliefs, as for instance by the requirement of evidence, lowers the barrier againstbigotry,fanaticism, andpersecution. While its high aspiration is to warn against humanpride, some say its supporters areguilty of what they themselves claim is the highest form of pride: They claim that they know the mind of God.[1]
 | Thisphilosophy of religion-related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |
