Faith versus reason.
Philosophy, Religion | Comments (12)
I have been wondering of late, where does reason end and faith begin? Or perhaps, depending on your starting point, you could reverse the question. If we were all completely rational beings, it would be assumed that we would rely entirely upon reason, apart from faith, to support our beliefs or worldview. Accordingly, in addition to this rationality, we may want to take into consideration not just our own subjectivity but the inter-subjectivity provided by the rationality of everyone else. In this way, we are able to gain a wider perspective by a reliance upon the consensus of many others. I am not saying that the majority is always correct, but some beliefs certainly carry more weight by the sheer number of people who believe them. At least on first glance this seems to make sense.
Take the theory of evolution as an example. Admittedly, I have little solid understanding of the theory, but I am well aware of the credibility it enjoys among scientists worldwide. To these such experts, and a multitude of others, it is widely held as being almost irrefutable. However, there are plenty of others who disbelieve the theory. Some of those are Christians who wish to take the creation account in Genesis on face value and proclaim that God created the universe and formed earth as well as its inhabitants. Now, if Darwin’s theory (or its subsequent manifestations) are correct, or at least held to be the most ‘reasonable’ theory behind the existence of life and the universe, then at what point to we start denying the overwhelming scientific rationality and look for something else? There seems to come a point where sheer rationality is no longer necessary or useful. It seems to me that for as long as evidence or rationality is useful to support an ideology or belief, then they will be employed. However, as soon as the evidence is not useful the rationality behind it will be discarded.
It is a question of our starting points or what we dearly want to hold on to. A friend was telling me the other day that Chuck Missler had employed the use of experts in the fields of international relations and the like to attempt to see how the state of world affairs was fitting into Biblical prophecy. This appears reasonable enough, but I do wonder at the calibre of such experts, and whether or not they have some sort of vested interest in interpreting world affairs in such a manner that could give a heavy bias to Missler’s foregone conclusion on how the world is going to end. A similar logic is employed in the climate change debate. I have heard the verse in the book of Job “This far you may come, but no farther, And here your proud waves must stop” (Job 38:11) as some sort of evidence that climate change is a hoax. This type of worldview does not bother to refute the evidence that is presented by scientists. Rather, it bypasses reason and goes straight to faith. It is faith that a literal interpretation of the Bible as absolute truth. The problem should appear obvious: at what point do we concede that empirical information is no longer useful and opt out for our foregone conclusion based upon blind faith?
Faith never seems to end. For the Christian, it is easier to just accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, rather than to try and separate the wheat from the chaff. Questions such as ‘Did Paul know that his epistles to the various churches were going to be made into scripture at some point?’ are almost irrelevant to most Christians. It does not matter if Paul did or did not know that his writings would be canonised. His writings are accepted as being the Word of God, and that’s the end of the matter. In other words, it takes faith to accept that Paul’s writings are truly the inspired words of God. Whilst other writers, who may claim to have been inspired by God but whose writings did not make the cut, are thrown out as heretics. I am not saying that I disbelieve the Bible. What I am suggesting is that we ought to have reasons for believing it, and have the freedom to ask questions as to how we interpret it and how it was compiled. Moreover, I am raising the question as to how we come to our beliefs in certain matters. If there happens to be convincing physical evidence that contradicts our preformed beliefs, do we allow our beliefs to be challenged and changed, or do we laugh in the face of good sense?
By the way, I am also not saying that faith is always opposed to reason. Perhaps the kind of ‘faith’ I am criticising is the kind that would suggest that God put ancient dinosaur fossils in the ground to test our faith. To me, that’s not faith, it is idiocy.
Adam @ July 26, 2008