Faith and Reason
It seems that a lot of people think that faith and reason clash in some way. Here are some quick and imprecise ways of stating the alleged clash:
1. Perhaps they clash because reason shows that the objects of faith (e.g. God, the trinity, the incarnation, the resurrection, etc) either do not exist or probably do not exist. Thus, faith, on this account of the clash, is irrational.
2. Perhaps they clash because faith requires belief and commitment that is non-rational (where 'non-rational' on this account includes emotions, feelings, desire, will, etc.) Thus, faith, on this account of the clash, is non-rational.
3. Perhaps they class because faith would be useless if the objects of faith could be demonstrated by reason. Thus, faith, on this account of the clash, is non-rational because worthless if rational.
4. Perhaps they clash because faith has to go beyond the world of perception and reason is restricted to the perceptible world. After all, "I walk by faith, not by sight." Thus, faith (or more accurately, the objects of faith), on this account of the clash, is non-perceptible and therefore either irrational or non-rational.
I'm sure there are other accounts of the clash between faith and reason, but the above 4 is plenty for now. I think that each of the above accounts of the clash is false. I do think that there is a difference between faith and reason, but I do not think there is a clash. Here is a way of testing whether you really think there is a genuine clash between faith and reason:
Test: If I acquired more reasons to think that God exists would my faith increase, decrease, or remain the same? (You can substitute 'God exists' with 'the trinity is either true or not contradictory' or 'the incarnation is either true or not contradictory' or 'the resurrection occurred' or....)
It seems to me that the answer is 'increase.' In other words, as I come to see that God's existence is demonstrable from more and more starting points, more and more observations of the world, my confidence that God exists increases. And that is true even though I think it is plausible to believe that I can be justified in believing that God exists without arguments or independent reasons. If you answer the Test with 'increase' then you too deny a clash between faith and reason.
Richard Dawkins and other popular atheists have defined faith as believing without or contrary to the evidence. I know of virtually no theist (and almost no thoughtful atheists) who agrees with that definition. Dawkins and others are assuming that faith is irrational. They are assuming 1 above. But why think that? After all, there are lots of good reasons to think that God exists. Even if God does not exist (something I think is impossible), those good reasons would not cease being reasons. I can have really good reasons for thinking that a student cheated, or that Medicaid for all will be bad for most, or that ... and still be mistaken.
Perhaps 2-4 may be reasons to think there is a clash that both some believers and some unbelievers endorse. Let's look briefly at each.
Re 2: First, why think that emotions, etc are non-rational? For what it's worth, I do not accept the views that places emotions, desires, willings/volitions, etc in a class outside of rationality. For example, I think emotions, desires, willings, etc are ways of perceiving that can be accurate or inaccurate to varying degrees. They can each be rationally evaluated, in part at least, by their correctness conditions. My anger, fear, contentment, etc can be criticized for being too strong, too weak, too long, directed at the wrong thing(s), etc. Second, on this account faith and reason do not clash. This account does not say that faith is against reason. It says that faith is completely distinct from reason (on a strong interpretation). Furthermore, this account (on a weaker interpretation of it) is compatible with reason because it may be that the non-rational aspects of faith rest on the rational aspects. It may be that as I acquire more and more reasons to think that God exists (the trinity, etc) my emotions, desires, feelings, willings, etc increase in their strength as well.
Re 3: This one seems to be somewhat popular amongst believers. First, if the right answer to the test is 'increase' then this one is false. Reasons are not useless to faith. But it is hard to see why reasons would be useless to faith. They are not useless for my marriage. Faith and trust increase as my reasons to believe that my wife is trustworthy increase. It would be really weird, bizarre even if my coming to know with absolute certainty that my wife is faithful, trustworthy, loves me, etc. would destroy my commitment to her. It sure seems like it would just increase it. Second, the whole Bible is full of reminders of God's faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, etc. The Psalms and the prophets regularly do this. Jesus and Paul regularly do this. Why? Because reminders of God's character increase present confidence. they increase faith. Third, why would knowing with certainty that God exists and that He really is good, wise, etc ruin my faith? Wouldn't it increase my confidence, trust, and faith in Him?
Re 4: In one sense this is the best account. But it rests, I think, on a false assumption. It is false that reason is restricted to the perceptible, to the world of empirical confirmation and disconfirmation, to the world knowable via sensory perception. Why think that? After all, neither logic nor math is perceptible, knowable via sensory perception, etc. and they are some of the greatest examples of reason. So, it is just false that reason and rationality should be defined in terms of some weird restriction to the empirical and perceivable. But, I do think that faith goes beyond the empirical and perceptible. God's existence is not perceptible with the normal sensory organs. How could it be? But neither are numbers or truth or goodness or badness or rightness or wrongness or reason or consciousness or .... Faith goes beyond sight. But it is not incompatible with sight.
On one account of faith, faith is a way of perceiving. Faith is a faculty for grasping truths that are not graspable via other faculties. My sight allows me to grasp truths about color and distance, my hearing allows be to grasp truths about sounds, my .... Faith is kind of like that on this account. And just as those other faculties can be damaged or otherwise impaired, the faculty of faith can as well. And just as those other faculties can be healed and repaired so that my seeing is more accurate, my faculty of faith can be healed and repaired as well. May God heal us all!
1. Perhaps they clash because reason shows that the objects of faith (e.g. God, the trinity, the incarnation, the resurrection, etc) either do not exist or probably do not exist. Thus, faith, on this account of the clash, is irrational.
2. Perhaps they clash because faith requires belief and commitment that is non-rational (where 'non-rational' on this account includes emotions, feelings, desire, will, etc.) Thus, faith, on this account of the clash, is non-rational.
3. Perhaps they class because faith would be useless if the objects of faith could be demonstrated by reason. Thus, faith, on this account of the clash, is non-rational because worthless if rational.
4. Perhaps they clash because faith has to go beyond the world of perception and reason is restricted to the perceptible world. After all, "I walk by faith, not by sight." Thus, faith (or more accurately, the objects of faith), on this account of the clash, is non-perceptible and therefore either irrational or non-rational.
I'm sure there are other accounts of the clash between faith and reason, but the above 4 is plenty for now. I think that each of the above accounts of the clash is false. I do think that there is a difference between faith and reason, but I do not think there is a clash. Here is a way of testing whether you really think there is a genuine clash between faith and reason:
Test: If I acquired more reasons to think that God exists would my faith increase, decrease, or remain the same? (You can substitute 'God exists' with 'the trinity is either true or not contradictory' or 'the incarnation is either true or not contradictory' or 'the resurrection occurred' or....)
It seems to me that the answer is 'increase.' In other words, as I come to see that God's existence is demonstrable from more and more starting points, more and more observations of the world, my confidence that God exists increases. And that is true even though I think it is plausible to believe that I can be justified in believing that God exists without arguments or independent reasons. If you answer the Test with 'increase' then you too deny a clash between faith and reason.
Richard Dawkins and other popular atheists have defined faith as believing without or contrary to the evidence. I know of virtually no theist (and almost no thoughtful atheists) who agrees with that definition. Dawkins and others are assuming that faith is irrational. They are assuming 1 above. But why think that? After all, there are lots of good reasons to think that God exists. Even if God does not exist (something I think is impossible), those good reasons would not cease being reasons. I can have really good reasons for thinking that a student cheated, or that Medicaid for all will be bad for most, or that ... and still be mistaken.
Perhaps 2-4 may be reasons to think there is a clash that both some believers and some unbelievers endorse. Let's look briefly at each.
Re 2: First, why think that emotions, etc are non-rational? For what it's worth, I do not accept the views that places emotions, desires, willings/volitions, etc in a class outside of rationality. For example, I think emotions, desires, willings, etc are ways of perceiving that can be accurate or inaccurate to varying degrees. They can each be rationally evaluated, in part at least, by their correctness conditions. My anger, fear, contentment, etc can be criticized for being too strong, too weak, too long, directed at the wrong thing(s), etc. Second, on this account faith and reason do not clash. This account does not say that faith is against reason. It says that faith is completely distinct from reason (on a strong interpretation). Furthermore, this account (on a weaker interpretation of it) is compatible with reason because it may be that the non-rational aspects of faith rest on the rational aspects. It may be that as I acquire more and more reasons to think that God exists (the trinity, etc) my emotions, desires, feelings, willings, etc increase in their strength as well.
Re 3: This one seems to be somewhat popular amongst believers. First, if the right answer to the test is 'increase' then this one is false. Reasons are not useless to faith. But it is hard to see why reasons would be useless to faith. They are not useless for my marriage. Faith and trust increase as my reasons to believe that my wife is trustworthy increase. It would be really weird, bizarre even if my coming to know with absolute certainty that my wife is faithful, trustworthy, loves me, etc. would destroy my commitment to her. It sure seems like it would just increase it. Second, the whole Bible is full of reminders of God's faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, etc. The Psalms and the prophets regularly do this. Jesus and Paul regularly do this. Why? Because reminders of God's character increase present confidence. they increase faith. Third, why would knowing with certainty that God exists and that He really is good, wise, etc ruin my faith? Wouldn't it increase my confidence, trust, and faith in Him?
Re 4: In one sense this is the best account. But it rests, I think, on a false assumption. It is false that reason is restricted to the perceptible, to the world of empirical confirmation and disconfirmation, to the world knowable via sensory perception. Why think that? After all, neither logic nor math is perceptible, knowable via sensory perception, etc. and they are some of the greatest examples of reason. So, it is just false that reason and rationality should be defined in terms of some weird restriction to the empirical and perceivable. But, I do think that faith goes beyond the empirical and perceptible. God's existence is not perceptible with the normal sensory organs. How could it be? But neither are numbers or truth or goodness or badness or rightness or wrongness or reason or consciousness or .... Faith goes beyond sight. But it is not incompatible with sight.
On one account of faith, faith is a way of perceiving. Faith is a faculty for grasping truths that are not graspable via other faculties. My sight allows me to grasp truths about color and distance, my hearing allows be to grasp truths about sounds, my .... Faith is kind of like that on this account. And just as those other faculties can be damaged or otherwise impaired, the faculty of faith can as well. And just as those other faculties can be healed and repaired so that my seeing is more accurate, my faculty of faith can be healed and repaired as well. May God heal us all!
Comments
Post a Comment