The Idea
The text opens a confrontation between reason on one side and the discourse of closed faith on the other. The problem is not faith itself, but turning it into a tool for shutting down questioning and preventing criticism. And when some defenders raise the slogan of “true faith,” what is often meant is narrowing the horizon of thought, not protecting it.
Concise Formulation
Defenders of true faith: they seek to close off the horizon of reason
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim occupies a decisive place in the book’s argument because it identifies the internal obstacle to any intellectual renewal. Instead of being a conflict only with the outside, the text shows that there is an internal discourse that disables reason in the name of defending truth. Thus, freeing debate from closure becomes a condition for renewing religious understanding.
Why It Matters
Its importance lies in showing that criticism, in Arkoun’s view, does not target faith, but its self-enclosure. This illuminates the book’s way of distinguishing between open religiosity and religiosity that rejects review and revision. It also helps the reader understand that defending reason here means defending the possibility of understanding, not partisanship.
Reading Questions
- How does the text distinguish between faith as a religious experience and faith as a tool for closing off reason?
- Why is narrowing the horizon of reason an internal problem in the understanding of religion rather than merely an external objection to it?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location within the book’s material.