Faith and Reason
Friends or Foes?
Introduction
What is the relationship between faith and reason? Does faith require that we have reasons to believe or is faith merely a blind leap in the dark? Is faith a product of rational inquiry where our minds investigate first before we commit to a belief? Or do we commit to a belief and then look for evidence to support it? Are our beliefs contrary to evidence or does evidence support the beliefs we hold? What exactly is faith? Just exactly how does a belief that God exists work together with evidence and reason?
First of all, it’s important to distinguish between the belief that God exists and whether it’s reasonable to believe God exists. Our goal in this first session is to demonstrate that a belief in the existence of God is reasonable by showing how faith and reason work together, as friends not foes. Our next session will lay out specific arguments showing evidence for the belief that God exists.
It appears that some believe in God but don’t think about him. Others think about him but don’t believe in him. My goal here is to demonstrate the value of being a thinking believer and a believing thinker. The way I plan to do this is discussing four things: 1) the anatomy of faith, 2) the nature of truth claims, and 3) the value of doubt, and 4) the myth of neutrality. In the final analysis I will show why it’s necessary to believe that faith and reason work together and not against each other.
The Anatomy of Faith
What is faith? St. Augustine noted that faith is “resting in the evidence.” Some think that faith is devoid of evidence or that the more faith one has the less evidence is required. But faith believes with the evidence, not against it. Faith is always “faith in” or “faith that”. Faith is not the opposite of thinking or reasoning.
Faith is trust in someone or something. Faith is having more certainty than doubt. Faith is not some amorphous wish or hopeful desire that something might be the case. Faith believes with the evidence and never against it.
Three Elements That Comprise Faith
Faith begins with knowledge (notitia). Cognition (mental processes) is the primary faculty involved with notitia. Faith is not an empty container but is filled with content. Faith necessarily entails “faith in” something or someone. Simply because faith involves religious knowledge does not require us to be less certain about the content of our faith. When our religious convictions are logically sound and fit the facts, then we are justified in holding our beliefs with certainty.
Knowledge leads to mental assent (assensus). Assent moves us from cognition to conviction. When we assent to a belief we are admitting the truth of a claim or we are agreeing with the facts of a claim. Assent to facts is what makes belief possible. There is an emotional element involved with assensus wherein a personal element of assurance is present, but we must not confuse our subjective assurance with the objective facts of a belief. Mental assent is necessary in all our beliefs. Assent includes knowledge of (notitia) and acceptance that (assensus). One must not only know the truth but also accept it as fact before belief obtains. Mental assent, though necessary, is not sufficient. Mere acceptance of truth falls short of genuine faith.
Faith comes to completion with trust (fiducia). From cognition (= awareness), to conviction (= acceptance), to commitment (= appropriation). Whereas notitia is primarily intellectual, assensusemotional, fiducia is volitional. Faith is a trust that surrenders the soul to the facts. The seat of faith lies not in the intellect alone, nor in the emotions alone, or in the will alone. Rather, the seat of genuine faith lies in all three, which the Bible calls the human heart (Rom. 10:9-10).
Further Questions to Consider
Can I know something is true without being able to show it is true? Sometimes I hold a true belief without knowing the reasons why it’s true. Consider: If you were asked to factor the equation x2 – 3x – 10 and you believed (without solving) that the true answer is “(x – 5) (x + 2),” you would be correct, even though you may not know how to solve it by the mathematical process. The truth of your answer remains, though you may not know how to derive that answer. Similarly, some beliefs can be true without reasons. I can hold a true belief without knowing why that belief is true. This is not to say that a belief is false if I don’t have reasons for it. It is to say that justification for a belief is not the same as the belief itself. Sometimes what I know is true is different from what I can show is true.
Which comes first, faith or reason? The expression ‘fides quaerens intellectum‘ (faith seeking understanding) may help us. Sometimes our beliefs begin with faith and then move toward understanding. Consider: a child takes for granted what their parent says and then grows in understanding. We first trust a map and then come to understand how to use it. When your car breaks down, we first come to the owner’s manual from a position of trust in those who wrote it. Faith seeks understanding.
Can I have a measure of doubt about a belief and still commit to it?Consider: On my wedding day I did not have 100-percent certainty that my marriage was going to work out. There was some doubt. Yet, because I had more certainty than doubt, I committed. This is how faith works in belief formation; it does not remove all suspicion but contains enough certainty to make a commitment.
Is it hard to change my beliefs? Most beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum but exist within a network of deeper beliefs about how I understand the way the world works. This network of deeper beliefs is called a worldview. A worldview is a collection of theoretical commitments that form a framework in which I evaluate new or opposing ideas. Like a set of lenses through which I assess everything, my worldview is essentially decided prior to being exposed to new ideas. In fact, my interpretive skills for evaluating new beliefs can be held hostage to my worldview such that alternative viewpoints are not given a fair chance.
Moreover, if I limit my exposure to questionable ideas, then my sense of well-being stays intact. And, since how I think, feel, believe, and behave is forever being sculpted within the context of my social experiences, I tend to seek out social networks that serve as an ideological echo chamber. When everyone in a crowd thinks like me — though I succumb to confirmation bias — my sense of well-being is preserved. “Birds of a feather…”
Beliefs are not always a matter of the mind; they’re also a matter of the heart. As Blaise Pascal said, “The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.” Some beliefs are rejected, not because they make little sense, but because the consequences of embracing them are too much to bear. Once this realization sinks in, then skepticism takes hold and reasons are crafted to reinforce opposition. In fact, the more a matter cuts to the core of my being — my humanity — the more likely I will resist or reject some new belief. Reason and truth can be casualties of expediency or convenience. Paul Copan speaks to this phenomenon:
The less a matter cuts to the core of my being — my humanity — the less likely it is to distort my reasoning. So, for instance, my thinking is not very likely to be distorted when I perceive a yellow warbler in a branch just outside my window, which leads me to conclude that I am being appeared to warblerly. However, the closer the topic comes to the core of my being — moral choices, guilt, shame, ultimate authority, personal autonomy — the greater the tendency to “subordinate truth to other values”. The noetic influence of sin — the impact of sin on the mind — is bound to affect our philosophizing. (A Little Book for New Philosophers)
Three considerations when adopting new beliefs:
Is the belief logically consistent? Logical consistency asserts that it is most often easier to understand and embrace a new belief when it does not violate the basic laws of logic (law of identity, law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction). This is not to say that systems appearing logically inconsistent are untrue; only that it is more difficult to grasp any truth there may be. Logical consistency not only promotes critical thinking but also clear thinking.
Is the belief empirically adequate? Empirical adequacy insists that all the relevant data, including alternative ideas and beliefs, are not to be ignored but critically and honestly evaluated before conclusions are drawn and convictions are embraced. Does adopting a new belief comport with established data and am I giving due consideration to my worldview when interpreting the facts?
Is the belief existentially viability? Existential viability signifies affirming without hypocrisy a philosophy of life that seeks to promote a synthesis of beliefs with behavior, thus advancing consonant rather than dissonant living. Can I live consistently and with integrity by adopting this new belief?
The Nature of Truth Claims
Some claims are subjective, private, and personal. Other claims are objective, public, and factual. If I claim that the capital of Hungary is Budapest, and someone responds “That’s true,” then what others believe is irrelevant to the objective fact of the matter. Objective facts are either true or they’re not. On the other hand, if I claim that Budapest is the most beautiful city in the world and someone responds, “That’s true,” then what others believe is relevant with regard to matters of taste, preference of architecture, etc., since this is a subjective claim.
Likewise, there are some aspects of Christianity that are subjective and others that are objective. Since Christianity makes claims about all of reality and these claims are public and not merely private, then these claims are either objectively true or not and there must be evidence to support them. If there is evidence to support objective Christian claims, then that means we can know them to be true. Some things may still be true but not supported by reason alone, for example the Christian idea of Trinity. Reason cannot comprehend this mystery and prove it, but reason can demonstrate that it’s not irrational to believe. Not all beliefs are false because we lack full comprehension.
When Christians claim that Christianity is true, we are not simply claiming that it fulfills some function in our lives like providing peace of mind, purpose in life, etc. While it does provide these things, Christianity provides these things because they’re rooted in a larger claim about all of reality (e.g., “God exists and we need him.”). True religion must be grounded in reality and not merely in the psyche. If the claims of Christianity are true, then there is evidence to support them. Otherwise, there’s no reason to hold the claims.
What about Doubt?
Is commitment to a belief compatible with criticism of that belief? Put differently, is there any value in doubting my beliefs? How much doubt can I have in my beliefs and still hold them to be true?
I can be justified in holding the belief that my wife loves me while still being aware of the logical possibility that she may not love me. To say that I can recognize what it would look like if my wife did not love me is not to say that she in fact does not love me.
To say that my belief could be false is not to say that I’m unjustified in holding to my belief. It may be in fact false that God exists, but that possibility does not mean that I’m irrational for holding the belief that God does exist.
Moreover, I can hold a belief with certainty and still have some doubt. A belief only requires 51 percent certainty or better.
Sometimes we hold a belief on the basis of someone’s authority and then seek reasons to support our belief. We accept the testimony of a doctor when we’re told we have cancer, but then we also look for the evidence or reasons to believe him. Many of you may not have seen New York City but you have reasons to believe it exists on the basis of reliable authorities (friends, newspapers, magazines, internet, media, etc.). Should you have an opportunity to visit New York City, then your belief in New York City would become a belief with understanding. Sometimes we know our beliefs are true without understanding all the reasons why they’re true.
The Myth of Neutrality
Can we really be neutral about our beliefs and not commit? No. To sit on the fence is still to take a position, namely, “not to take a position.” Neutrality simply does not exist. While some may be more open than others and honestly exploring the options before committing, few end up suspending beliefs on vitally important matters such as God, life after death, purpose, meaning, values and morality. Everyone eventually decides what they believe on these matters. For those who claim they have not thought about these things, they have at least committed to the belief that it’s not worth thinking about, which tells us a great deal about what they believe and certainly what they value! To claim there is no truth in religious matters is itself a truth claim about religion.
Everyone has a philosophy of life that contains claims to truth, even if the truths held turn out to be false. For example, what happens after death (resurrection, reincarnation, annihilation) is a question everyone asks and, while we may wish we’re exempt from drawing a conclusion on this matter, no one is exempt from experiencing the truth of the matter.
Moreover, choosing not to be neutral while embracing truth claims on matters of ultimate importance does not mean one cannot be open-minded about opposing beliefs. An open-minded person …
Identifies the assumptions and opinions that uphold their beliefs
Draws conclusions but is willing to subject their assumptions and beliefs to critical inquiry.
Recognizes that if there is a truth about a position, then opposing positions cannot be true
Is willing to listen to good arguments from opposing beliefs that may help shape beliefs and get at the truth-value of them
Is willing to alter or abandon their beliefs if they have little or no reasons to hold them
Invites others to change your mind knowing that if what you believe is true then it will withstand the closest scrutiny. Conversely, if what you believe is false, then your opponent has done you a favor by pointing you to the truth.
Summary and Conclusion
To sum up, I’ve shown that faith and reason are friends and not foes. They work together in support of one another. We’ve looked at the anatomy of faith, the nature of truth claims, the value of doubt, and the myth of neutrality showing that faith with reason is the optimal formula for belief. Like a composer and conductor, faith and reason work together to create a beautiful symphony that performs on the human heart and inspires conviction, hope, and purpose.
I’m indebted to Gregory E. Ganssle’s Thinking About God for much of this material.