Reason and Religion

The role of reason in religion is a major theme in my research. As I read about attempts to solve 17th-century doctrinal conflict by appealing to reason, I can't help but think of our own society - appeals to tolerance, reasonableness, and a rejection of dogma; the view that all religions basically agree on the main points and that the details are not important; the conviction that the way a person lives is more important than what they believe.

Here is a quote from the article I'm currently reading, referring to attempts to find a middle ground between Anglicanism and Puritanism:

Through reason it was hoped that men might be induced to mitigate their stress on points of minor importance, tolerate the lesser differences of opinion, and come together on the great essentials concerning which there could be no reasonable doubt.1

Sounds good in theory, but who decides which points are of minor importance? How do we judge which differences of opinion to tolerate and which we should stand up against? What are the "great essentials" and how do we define "reasonable doubt"? And how did they ever think they could convince Puritans of the value of reason when Puritans thought it had been corrupted by the Fall?!

Hmm. Hopefully I'll have it figured out by the end of the year.

1. Sterling P. Lamprecht, “Innate Ideas in the Cambridge Platonists,” The Philosophical Review 35:6 (1926), 553-573.