Author, Adam.
Published, July 26, 2008.
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.
As I age, learn and grow in my relationship with God I seem to be coming to some sort of resolution. My journey began with Denial and roughly followed to > Rebellion > Awareness > Acceptance > Desire > Fulfillment > Joyful Resignation > Contemplation.
In hindsight the temporary folly in my journey was an obsession with and an over emphasis on the importance of reason in one’s relationship with God. Contrary to all that Jesus taught (eg. John 6:44) I allowed myself to be distracted by forays into evidence, proving, justifying and convincing others and myself that what I believed, was in fact true. Notice, it wasn’t what Jesus said that was my emphasis. It wasn’t His gospel of salvation that I wanted to communicate. Rather, what I believed and why I believed it took on an importance that again, in hindsight was not only distracting but probably destructive to those with whom I was interacting.
It was like, Now that I know this is true, now that I have a solid, vibrant, exciting relationship with my Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ, I need to lay out the evidence for what I already know to be true. For some reason I needed to justify my relationship with Jesus. It was like I was convincing myself all over again. In truth, out of fear that others might think less of me, I had this need to justify my relationship with Jesus to non believers, especially to those who seem condemned to live within a very narrow band of awareness. Yes we are to be able to give an explanation for why we believe, but we must not confuse that explanation with the work that the Holy Spirit does in a yet-to-be-believer’s soul in bringing that person to salvation. People are not saved by evidence. They are saved by hearing the Word of God in general and being exposed to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Those that demand further proof are simply not at a place where any decision for redemption can be made. God may bring them to that point some day but for now, simply laying out God’s plan of salvation through Jesus is all that can be done.
I now see that an emphasis on reason, while interesting in it’s own right, is superfluous to, unnecessary for and theoretically at least contrary to the initiation and development of faith. It is God who calls, God who grows, God who saves and sanctifies. Anything that we are or ever will be is from God and God alone. Knowing Him, really knowing Him is a purely spiritual affair, devoid of any need for proof save that of God Himself and His stirring in our souls.
Adam,
Good thoughts! I agree with you almost entirely. It is (obviously) tricky to balance the two. I think tht Christians are told to have faith, but not blind faith. I think that is your point. Missler annoys me, but i have a grudge against Dispensationalists.
Markarios,
Simply believing is not quite enough, because we then do not give those beliefs the respect they deserve. If one cares about something, then they would set out to defend it if it was attacked, as best they could. God doesn’t need our help, but I still think beliefs are worth defending. An emphasis on reason helps us, as believers, bolster our personal faith, while it gives the Holy Spirit another avenue through which he can speak to, and call others. I don’t agree with you, that there is confusion between a faith explanation and the work of Spirit. We limit the work of the Spirit by suggesting that he wouldn’t work like that. I completely agree with your theological statements, but I disagree with your “really knowing him is a purely spiritual affair” statement.
Thanks for your comment Makarios. I can certainly see where you are coming from in regards to how we come to accept the message of Jesus. Afterall, faith comes from hearing the Word. However, as I have already argued, I see that in the context of religion we seem to have only two options: either we accept it or we don’t. In Christianity, the option appears to be that we enter into the Christian camp and as soon as we are there we no longer need clear rational thought. We dive in head first and use scripture as the exclusive basis for what is true. Everything else is cast aside. Perhaps, at least to some degree, that is what Christianity requires. But we are also told to love God with our minds, to be as wise as serpents, and to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we can discern what is good and acceptable and perfect will of God. I know that the last verse from Roman 12 is talking about spiritual things, but I don’t view spiritual things as being disengaged from the physical. So, if God is true, and what we know about Him spiritually is true, then all else physical must fit into that picture. What we observe in the world MUST add up to our spiritual beliefs eventually.
Just had the privilege of spending 2 weeks on a retreat with Dallas Willard. He talked about the difference between Profession, Commitment, Belief, and Knowledge. People often confuse profession of particular things (eg. doctrines) with belief in them. He suggests we ALWAYS live up to our beliefs whatever it is that we actually profess - ie look at what someone does and I will tell you what they actually believe (place their confidence in).
Faith isn’t opposed to reason it is opposed to sight and even materialists operate on that basis. On the basis of experience many people confidently (by faith) assume the water coming out of the tap is safe to drink - they don’t test it every time. In fact life is practically impossible without faith.
Willard’s forthcoming book about the loss of moral knowledge talks about how issues of religion and morality are now tended to be regarded as a matter for private belief. Yet religions make claims about what is true with regard to life and the human condition - that is the field of knowledge. That puts it in the public square for consideration and debate - conducted fairly and not resorting to shooting the messanger, straw man or other rhetorical strategies.
I like what NT Wright says about the bible and its authority. One of his latest lectures can be found at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=334
Hello, friends!
I thought I’d add a dimension to this chat since 1.), I want to and 2.) Simon A.K.A. Stuart loves when I leave comments.
I’m curious to know how people who practice any religion can be sure that it’s thee one to believe in, particularly since there are so many to choose from.
It’s something I’ve never had to worry about because I was not brought up practicing a religion. I’m wondering what your views are? How do you have faith in a single religion? I can understand that being here, in this part of the world where you’re more or less surrounded by Christians it would be somewhat easy. But, I’m thinking, what if you found yourselves in a country that was mostly populated by Muslims, for example? Would your faith get rattled? Would you question your own beliefs after a while just because you were surrounded by people whose beliefs differed from your own? Would you wonder who’s correct? Or would your faith in Christianity become stronger?
Well, Suzy J. A good bunch of questions, and well put. I will answer the last ones first. If I found myself in a Muslim country, I would surely find it challenging to my Christian faith. I would also be confronted by the fact that the people surrounding me practice their religion genuinely. It would make me ask all of those questions which you have asked. My conviction that Christ is truth would, I hope, become stronger in this situation.
To answer the previous questions could better be answered in another forum, but I am happy to have a crack briefly here. Firstly; to have faith in more than one religion, or a combination of religions, is completely contradictory. Secondly; I think Christianity is true, aside from my personal experience, because it makes sense! It makes sense of me, of other people, of creation(which is a loaded term, I know), of the state of things. Aside from any spiritual experience, Christianity explains much of what is within us, and what is around us, by what it says is above us.
That is dreadfully wishy-washy answer, which should have an entire volume of apologetics written to back it up. There are some good ones around.
Interesting, Simon, interesting. Now I’ve more to ask!
I’m not sure if you know of the religion, Baha’i, but it’s well practiced (not so much in these parts of the world). A friend of mine, who is Baha’i, told me that in this religion, a condition of practice is, (assuming one was raised Baha’i and didn’t find it by themselves), at the age of sixteen, they’re encouraged to go out into the world and learn as much as they can about all other religions, evolution … even scientology. If they find a religion or set of beliefs that makes more sense to them, then they are free to believe them.
When I found this out (and Naghmeh has taught her own children to go out searching), I must admit I was mightily impressed. It seems to li’l ignorant me the idea of finding answers elsewhere is frowned upon if you practice a religion and in some extreme cases can result in death, yet in this religion, which is widely practiced in Iran, it’s encouraged. I appreciate how open-minded it is.
So now, I ask you (not just you Simon, but anyone who’d like to answer) two questions:
Question the first.) Have you ever wanted to look elsewhere other than Christianity to find answers or faith and
b.) You said that Chritianity makes sense to you but have you challenged your faith by learning more about other religions? You know, giving them a good, ol’ go? How do you know Christianity makes the most sense to you (assuming) you’ve not tried practicing other religions?
Which leads me back to where I began, to look elsewhere, to other religions, for answers, is that frowned upon to the extent that it stops one from doing so? Or does one not feel the need to look elsewhere? How long might one have to go looking before dedicating his/her life to a single faith?
Hi Suzy. A good bunch of questions. Questions which are not straight forward to answer. This is mainly because there are so many claims of ‘truth’ out there amongst our fellow human beings that it leaves us all on the same level playing field in our claims of what that truth is. I can’t tell you with authority that God exists, just as you could not tell me with authority that God doesn’t exist. Or supposing that we both believed in some sort of deity, whilst I could argue that my conception of God makes a lot more sense than your conception I cannot find a basis of authority to support my claim against yours. Mainly because we have different foundations on which base authority.
It is not a simple matter of deciding to start looking elsewhere to find answers or faith in order that we can be sure of what the ‘right religion’ is to believe. There’s a whole gambit of reasons why this is so. Mainly, I think, because our identity is so heavily shaped by our up bringing, what we have read, where our motivations lie, and what our assumptions are. These are strong influences in everyone’s life - not just the religious. My lecturer at uni the other was saying how people believe in what they do because it is so intrinsically tied to their identity. So to challenge their beliefs is to challenge their very person. My response to that is that everyone holds beliefs. Everyone. Even the nihilist. So, for someone to argue their case against a thestic tradition by saying that the only reason they continue to practice it is because it is the foundation to their identity is a little short-sighted if it does not recognise who their own identity (and therefore list of assumptions) works in the same way. What I would argue is that in deciding what to believe we need to look as objectively to the world around us, the human condition, etc etc to see what makes the most sense to us. With this in mind, I would also propose that this sort of observation of the world not be limited to reductionist kind of thinking that would only take into account the physically observable. There are phenomenon around us, or within us, that cannot be measured but we know intuitively. For example, our conception of knowing right from wrong. So, there’s a certain amount of logic involved.
In answer to your question, I think people should be allowed the freedom to seek the truth in whatever form they think fits - unless of course that turns out to be Nazism or something. The last couple of chapters in CS Lewis’ ‘The Last Battle’ sums up my stance on that. Perhaps also go here for interest’s sake.
http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/intermediate/exclusivity-how-can-there-be-just-one-true-religion.htm
David, thanks for your comments. I’ve printed out that NT Wright article and shall read as soon as I get the chance.
Thanks Suzy; hard, good questions. I am familiar with Baha’i. It is a nice concept, but doesn’t appear to support any sort of ultimate and absolute truth; I suppose that’s why people are attracted to it. I am not a fan of mixing faiths; logically it makes very little sense, and my particular belief is hardly comparable, at it’s core, to any other religion. What Christianity claims is unique.
I have learnt about other religions, and see what you’re suggesting here. I haven’t necessarily given them a “good ol’ go.” A few reasons for this; if one was to take this seriously, then one would never, ever, reach any conclusion. It would be impossible to give every religion fair and equal weight.
Also, I don’t feel the need to look elsewhere at the moment. As I said previously, Christianity makes sense, and answers most of my questions about things around me. This is horribly post-modern of me, but I think it’s down to the individual how long they search for the truth. However, if you feel you’ve found it, it makes no sense to look any further for something can’t be found elsewhere. There is, in my opinion, only one truth. That truth was made clearest in the man who was also fully God; Jesus of Nazareth.
I would like to suggest a distinction between the faculty of reason, analogous to discernment. And the use of reason as an almost legalistic type of skeptisism. Using David’s example I can reason to drink water from a tap, even one from which I have never drunk, without having to establish it as safe.
I don’t think this disagrees with anything mentioned above; but it is a danger inherent within our own ability for skeptisism, if reason becomes more than a faculty for making a choice/descision we elevate it to a position of greater importance than it merits itself.
Roger,
I think you are suggesting that we should not make truth out of reason itself. Instead, ‘reason’ is a faculty - not an object. Yet, it must be said that it is a very important faculty to have and use. For if we are able to say that anthing is true we must use this faculty of ‘reason’ to do so. It is true that reason can be used in conjunction with a skeptical attitude, but it is also possible to use reason in conjunction with preformed assumptions on a particular matter. I guess, the way I am using ‘reason’ is in the sense that it can point to good evidence and good logic to support certain stipulations. Once again, I’m not arguing against faith, but a type of ‘faith’ that is weakly formed and only serves to support our own identity and not a coherent view of the world. I find it difficult, for instance, to say that “Homosexuals won’t inherit the Kingdom of God” just because Paul said so (1 Corinthians 6:9). I’m getting myself into tricky territory, but I don’t think morals are not as black and white as sometimes they are made out to be.
Well, that may have opened a whole new can of worms.
So, write another entry about that can of worms!
Indeed, . Though I would separate ‘reason’ from the requirement for evidence.
But are you suggesting that we can have unmediated ‘evidence’? Reason exists to mediate evidence. So, whilst it is somewhat silly to elevate reason above all else (as though all reasoning is the same, or there is only one way to reason), it is a fundamental necessity in interpreting evidence. That being said, it is obvious that there are good ways of using reason and bad ways of using reason. My main point is that somehow we manage to reconcile two irreconcilible points by either appling bad logic to them or by not thinking about it at all. What’s the point in holding them to be true if they don’t stand to reason?
I seem unable to articulate, for I agree with you entirely.
I hold that calling ‘I require a reason to explain this’ is not reason. The scriptures call this unbelief, and it comes from a hardening of heart, not wanting or able to see.
e.g. “I don’t believe in God unless I see him.”
Perhaps, try this, evidence is not always ’scientific’ evidence. It is unreasonable to expect it be.
It’s true, it isn’t always scientific evidence that we point to when we apply reason to our beliefs. There are plenty of phenomenon that appear to be immaterial and are thus immeasurable by science (morality perhaps). It is the case though, that many scientists (and some philosophers) are compelled to resort to this materialist and reductionist line of thinking, which to me certainly limits ‘reason’ or ‘explanation’ to some degree. That being said, I shall return to what I said in my first comment and say, what we observe in the world MUST add up to our spiritual beliefs eventually. And, if something in the world obviously and irrefutably contradicts our religious or spiritual beliefs, then its time to change our religious beliefs. In most cases, it isn’t physical evidence that contradicts religious beliefs but badly applied logic. For example, how do we reconcile the doctrine of both God’s determined sovereign will and our free will? The best articulation of this (which is more of a description than an explanation) that I’ve heard came from Mark Talbot who said that ‘God’s sovereign will and our free will are compatible’. He cannot provide an explanation other than to say that it is the most biblical description of what occurs and therefore God manages to hold the two together.
God works in mysterious ways.