On Faith & Reason

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know if we'll have much to debate on this topic, but there certainly is a lot to discuss and learn about.

In Christianity Saint Thomas Aquinas joined philosophy and theology, and today Catholics still feel that these separate roads to knowledge compliment each other.

The relationship between faith and reason was proclaimed in the first Vatican council:

First, reason alone is not sufficient to guide men: they need Revelation; we must carefully distinguish the truths known by reason from higher truths (mysteries) known by Revelation.

Secondly, reason and Revelation, though distinct, are not opposed to each other.

Thirdly, faith preserves reason from error; reason should do service in the cause of faith.

Fourthly, this service is rendered in three ways:

reason should prepare the minds of men to receive the Faith by proving the truths which faith presupposes (praeambula fidei);

reason should explain and develop the truths of Faith and should propose them in scientific form;

reason should defend the truths revealed by Almighty God.

The church always seems touchy about this relationship - declaring in the second proclamation and revelation are NOT opposed to each other.

Here's Pope John Paul II's letter to the Bishops on the relationship between faith and reason.

n the wake of these cultural shifts, some philosophers have abandoned the search for truth in itself and made their sole aim the attainment of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to know the truth and to seek the absolute.

48. This rapid survey of the history of philosophy, then, reveals a growing separation between faith and philosophical reason. Yet closer scrutiny shows that even in the philosophical thinking of those who helped drive faith and reason further apart there are found at times precious and seminal insights which, if pursued and developed with mind and heart rightly tuned, can lead to the discovery of truth's way. Such insights are found, for instance, in penetrating analyses of perception and experience, of the imaginary and the unconscious, of personhood and intersubjectivity, of freedom and values, of time and history. The theme of death as well can become for all thinkers an incisive appeal to seek within themselves the true meaning of their own life. But this does not mean that the link between faith and reason as it now stands does not need to be carefully examined, because each without the other is impoverished and enfeebled. Deprived of what Revelation offers, reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal. Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.

Vatican.va

The Church hates to deny reason and science (Pope John Paul II was an evolutionist, for example) however there still needs to be room for the unreasonable in their theology. So they find ways for faith and reason to co-exist, even while tacitly acknowledging the separation between them.

I believe that these roads to knowledge can co-exist, inasmuch as philosophy and science will always have dark corners that can't be answered by reason alone. ( What came before the big bang ? And before that ? etc. )

Thoughts ?

You can see in

[Shwa]

I think Aquinas was the one of the most brilliant minds of his time, working with the defintions of his time. Would he see things in a different light today, even with his Catholic faith intact? Would Kant?

Because we need to define faith for these propositions to be workable in modern times and the articles of public religion must be thoroughly stripped away, even though there is still a place for personal religion or spirituality.

Thus "Faith" becomes "faith" with a more supple, inclusive defintion that addresses such human qualities as intuition and hypothesis.

If an institution wants to continue a millennium old experiment, I have no quarrel with that except in instances where it is decreed Truth and Law. I am sure Copernicus and Galilieo would have agreed.

[Oleg Bach]

Those that came after Christ - attempted to create a universal (polical) religion...which was NOT what Christ was about - Christainity was not about submission to the state but the defying of the state...any Christian prophet what suggests submission and compliance to the state is a traitor to Christ the only king. Any one or any religion that creates an atmosphere of fear and threat is political in nature - which the Catholic faith is.

[bush_cheney2004]

...any Christian prophet what suggests submission and compliance to the state is a traitor to Christ the only king.

Christ is not the only king...we have Budweiser, King of Beers....B.B. King...Billy Jean King....and Elvis, The King. So there....

[Michael Hardner]

Those that came after Christ - attempted to create a universal (polical) religion...which was NOT what Christ was about - Christainity was not about submission to the state but the defying of the state...any Christian prophet what suggests submission and compliance to the state is a traitor to Christ the only king. Any one or any religion that creates an atmosphere of fear and threat is political in nature - which the Catholic faith is.

The idea the Christianity was about defying the state isn't exactly right. They defied the state when it demanded that they repudiate Christianity and demanded that they deny their conscience.

I think Romans addressed the question of following the laws of the state but I'm not a scholar on such things.

[Michael Hardner]

I think Aquinas was the one of the most brilliant minds of his time, working with the defintions of his time. Would he see things in a different light today, even with his Catholic faith intact? Would Kant?

But what has changed ? Has humanity changed ? Or has human knowledge changed ?

I would say that the latter has changed - and as it changed it encroaches on matters of faith. What has been the result ? The Catholic church for one has surrendered areas of dogma (albeit reluctantly) to reason.

Thus "Faith" becomes "faith" with a more supple, inclusive defintion that addresses such human qualities as intuition and hypothesis.

I suppose that's true, but for those who believe their articles of faith are no less true than before.

If an institution wants to continue a millennium old experiment, I have no quarrel with that except in instances where it is decreed Truth and Law. I am sure Copernicus and Galilieo would have agreed.

Do you have examples of these instances ?

Church and state, in the west, have worked these things out... via productive dialogues... and wars.

[Sir Bandelot]

A person having faith does not require a logical proof. Faith is a firm belief, even when reason and facts dictate otherwise.

To the purely rational thinker, faith seems illogical and is a waste of time. But the power of faith must not be discounted. Faith provides a mechanism that goes beyond the boundaries of reason, and this can be very powerful. Human beings empowered with faith can sometimes achieve seemingly super-human results. Faith overcomes fear of limitations, because it removes fear of death.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Michael Hardner]

A person having faith does not require a logical proof. Faith is a firm belief, even when reason and facts dictate otherwise.

To the purely rational thinker, faith seems illogical and is a waste of time. But the power of faith must not be discounted. Faith provides a mechanism that goes beyond the boundaries of reason, and this can be very powerful. Human beings empowered with faith can sometimes achieve seemingly super-human results. Faith overcomes fear of limitations, because it removes fear of death.

Your post makes me think of something else: faith in science, and in scientific knowledge. Science can only tell us very little about the known universe, however it continues because we believe in it. It has helped us.

Can we prove it ? Is it a known fact that we're "better" than we would have been ?

Some would say not; Jared Diamond, for example, has recently posted a condemnation of agriculture ("The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race") which is arguably the oldest civilizing technology we have.

[GostHacked]

Your post makes me think of something else: faith in science, and in scientific knowledge. Science can only tell us very little about the known universe, however it continues because we believe in it. It has helped us.

Science is telling us more and more about the universe we live in. We believe (faith) in science, because it has garnered repeatable results which leads to knowledge. So putting faith in science can seem logical, only because science has been able to produce results, or disprove some theory. The results of science precede the faith in science, because science has reasoning. Faith in the supernatural is simply faith without reason or any kind of logic.

I like to use the scenario from South Park about the Underpants Gnomes.

Step 1 - Collect underpants

Step 2 - ?

Step 3 - Profit.

Logic and reasoning asks, well what is #2? Faith says, well #1 is collecting the underpants, *points to #2" then says #3 is profit. Yeah but what is number #2?

Logic also dictates that if we don't know something, that does not mean we won't find the answer, so the question remains open until it can be validated or tossed to the curb. I have faith in science, because it has continually filled in the gaps, and continues to fill in those gaps. Then we reach the point of knowledge when those gaps are filled.

Faith in the supernatural does not require any logic, or reasoning, because there is no way to work logic or reasoning in when dealing with the supernatural.

So, I'll put my faith in science, because it has been able to prove itself through the ages by repeatable tests with constant and consistent results. I can count on science to keep giving results. Science has a track record of giving results that can be independently verified.

I cannot put faith in the divine, or supernatural, because there is no logic or reasoning. Does one need logic or reasoning to believe and have faith in the divine? The answer is no.

[Michael Hardner]

But as John Paul II points out, there will always be shortcomings in a pure reason approach, when considering the big questions. Of course the church can't conceive of nihilism but can people live that way ? Many of them don't, I suspect, because the big questions are frightening.

[Shwa]

But what has changed ? Has humanity changed ? Or has human knowledge changed ?

Reason has changed; faith - in the religious sense - remains the same. Reason has increased our collective knowledge of the universe, religious faith has not.

I would say that the latter has changed - and as it changed it encroaches on matters of faith. What has been the result ? The Catholic church for one has surrendered areas of dogma (albeit reluctantly) to reason.

I think knowledge has remained the same, but what we do with it - how we use it to reason, has changed quite a bit as evidenced by the philosophical enquiries about it over the past few centuries since it was liberated from the confines of dogma. In fact, the old dogma has been found to be unreasonable.

I suppose that's true, but for those who believe their articles of faith are no less true than before.

Before what? Are you equating the mechanism - let's say 'feelings' - of your faith to the same content as, say, someone in the 13th century? The articles of faith are, so it seems to me, being de-institutionalized because self-perpetuating archaic institutions based on faith are seen to be unreasonable.

Do you have examples of these instances ?

Here are some examples of the great experiments over the centuries.

Church and state, in the west, have worked these things out... via productive dialogues... and wars.

Are they fully worked out though? The concept of political power seems to have been settled over the past two centuries. But is that all there is?

[Michael Hardner]

Reason has changed; faith - in the religious sense - remains the same. Reason has increased our collective knowledge of the universe, religious faith has not.

Quibble #1: Remains to be seen if knowing such things makes people happier, more fulfilled, etc.

I think knowledge has remained the same, but what we do with it - how we use it to reason, has changed quite a bit as evidenced by the philosophical enquiries about it over the past few centuries since it was liberated from the confines of dogma. In fact, the old dogma has been found to be unreasonable.

Quibble #2: Knowledge has increased.

Before what? Are you equating the mechanism - let's say 'feelings' - of your faith to the same content as, say, someone in the 13th century? The articles of faith are, so it seems to me, being de-institutionalized because self-perpetuating archaic institutions based on faith are seen to be unreasonable.

Quibble #3: De-institutionalizing the articles of faith. What is that ?

As for why faith is the same for us as for our middle aged predecessors, a truth is a truth right ?

Here are some examples of the great experiments over the centuries.

Ok, I get it now.

Are they fully worked out though? The concept of political power seems to have been settled over the past two centuries. But is that all there is?

They are not fully worked out. And the idea of institutions (which used to comprise church and state, separately) are under challenge from other sources... the masses, maybe...

[TimG]

Religion seeks to provide answers to the "Why" questions.

Science seeks to provide answers to the "How" questions.

[Oleg Bach]

Faith AND reason ? The REASON some parts of humanity deny or have no faith in God is usually because religion has created such a complex spider web of ideas which contain such a variety of contradictory reasonings - that it makes the god concept appear unreasonable. It is the sheer and scandalous complexity that generates sceptics and reasonably so!

Keep it simple stupid ---------- Understand that the whole concept of God and YOU is utterly simplistic. There is YOU - and YOU live within creation - all around you is God manifested in the phyisical world - absolutely everything on earth and every thing beyond into the great endless stretch of eternity.

So that is not difficult reasoning. You and IT. As for all religion..."complexity is the santuary of scoundrels" - I would say that - that sums it up in full! It is reasonable that skeptics find religion un-reasonable and contradictory...it is because skeptics and say what we call questioning atheists - question religion - not God.

So in my observation faith is simplistic...and resonable if kept simple - that we exist and this existance is proof that we are a creation of sorts. When you take faith and claim through religion that say the mother of Christ was a virgin...THAT is unreasonable God does not or needs not deal in supposed miracles - why would he or it attempt to convince his own creations of his fatherly existance by using artifice - artifice is the domain of political science.

[Sir Bandelot]

Reason has changed; faith - in the religious sense - remains the same. Reason has increased our collective knowledge of the universe, religious faith has not.

But one has to really grasp the point of the conservative mindset. It is NOT about progress. It is in fact a resistance to progress. Certain kinds of progress, anyway. And it does so intentionally.

[Michael Hardner]

But one has to really grasp the point of the conservative mindset. It is NOT about progress. It is in fact a resistance to progress. Certain kinds of progress, anyway. And it does so intentionally.

What does this have to do with conservative or liberal ?

[Shwa]

Quibble #1: Remains to be seen if knowing such things makes people happier, more fulfilled, etc.

You could always experiment. Find an islolated location and go without modern scientific amenities for a year or two and then guage your happiness and fulfillment index. Take a long a holy book for comfort.

Certainly everyone has done their Waldon Pond bit, but even Thoreau came back to Concord.

Quibble #2: Knowledge has increased.

Theological knowledge, not so much; well in comparison with scientific knowledge. However, I was unclear - knowledge, whether it is 500 years old or brand new is knowledge. We still have the collected data and they are being continually re-examined under a new light. I suppose that religious institutions do this as well, but not as rigorously, or so it seems.

Quibble #3: De-institutionalizing the articles of faith. What is that ?

It started when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the All Saints Church in Wittenburg. (or handed them in to the archbishop as was custom). The point being that faith began to move away from the instutition and into the hands of the members.

As for why faith is the same for us as for our middle aged predecessors, a truth is a truth right ?

Is it? Can you be certain that your view of faith has the same weight as the view of faith of a Catholic adherent even from 50 years ago?

They are not fully worked out. And the idea of institutions (which used to comprise church and state, separately) are under challenge from other sources... the masses, maybe...

Just the institution of the church as a social agent. Other forms of social life - justice, government, health - remain fairly entrenched as institutions and I think this all has more to do with proven utility towards the advancement of reason as a social phenomenon. The Pope's comment on utility misses the mark, I think, in that he implies that utility exists for itself. It doesn't, it exists for everyone. Otherwise, why buy a hammer when there are so many free rocks?

[Michael Hardner]

You could always experiment. Find an islolated location and go without modern scientific amenities for a year or two and then guage your happiness and fulfillment index. Take a long a holy book for comfort.

Not a fair test.

I have bitten the apple of technology and exited Eden. There are folks who have never known it, and some say they're very happy.

It started when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the All Saints Church in Wittenburg. (or handed them in to the archbishop as was custom). The point being that faith began to move away from the instutition and into the hands of the members.

Ok.

Is it? Can you be certain that your view of faith has the same weight as the view of faith of a Catholic adherent even from 50 years ago?

Certain ? No. I'm not certain of much.

For instance, I am pretty sure that this whole site is a prank by my old college buddies who keep posting under all of your names to prank me.

[Oleg Bach]

But one has to really grasp the point of the conservative mindset. It is NOT about progress. It is in fact a resistance to progress. Certain kinds of progress, anyway. And it does so intentionally.

Turning a man into a woman and a woman into a man is not progress. I really don't know or understand how the "conservative mindset" enters into this discussion..this discussion is not supposed to be political...political discussions are complex and always lead to more and more scull duggery...Reason with in faith is simplistic - reason with in poitical secularistic thought is very very complex and deceptive...it is all about secularist rationale.

[Sir Bandelot]

Turning a man into a woman and a woman into a man is not progress. I really don't know or understand how the "conservative mindset" enters into this discussion..this discussion is not supposed to be political...political discussions are complex and always lead to more and more scull duggery...Reason with in faith is simplistic - reason with in poitical secularistic thought is very very complex and deceptive...it is all about secularist rationale.

I did not mean political conservatives. But there might be a connection. I meant people who believe in maintaining certain traditional views. If we accept that faith means holding on to ones beliefs even when they are challenged by new ideas, then people of faith must necessarily believe in tradition.

Turning to the political spectrum, the "right" side always represented the side of the loyalists. Those who were loyal to the king, who upheld tradition and wanted to keep the old ways. They were... conservatives. And thus the association of Christian conservatives with the right wing.

Also, in some of my recent readings related to another topic I came across the Right Hegelians, which I thought was interesting.

So yes, I am prepared to say that people of faith, religion, are more conservative than people who are atheists. Not convinced? Go ask the Pope. IE the keepers of faith, the priests, most certainly are NOT Liberals.

You mentioned what you think is not progress. I agree, and it's part of the reason why people of faith may want to resist such 'progress'... because it really isn't progress at all. Quite a lot of things we may consider to be innovations, that might make life easier, are not necessarily good in the long run. If we but have the eyes to see what the future holds, and what comes out of the tangled web we weave when we seek to innovate... we seek to control, to dominate. To be superior over nature, to take from it what we want. As though somehow, we are separate from it. MH gave a link about the perceived evils of agriculture. I did not read the link, but suspect that this is what it's about.

[Oleg Bach]

I did not mean political conservatives. But there might be a connection. I meant people who believe in maintaining certain traditional views. If we accept that faith means holding on to ones beliefs even when they are challenged by new ideas, then people of faith must necessarily believe in tradition.

Turning to the political spectrum, the "right" side always represented the side of the loyalists. Those who were loyal to the king, who upheld tradition and wanted to keep the old ways. They were... conservatives. And thus the association of Christian conservatives with the right wing.

Also, in some of my recent readings related to another topic I came across the Right Hegelians, which I thought was interesting.

So yes, I am prepared to say that people of faith, religion, are more conservative than people who are atheists. Not convinced? Go ask the Pope. IE the keepers of faith, the priests, most certainly are NOT Liberals.

You mentioned what you think is not progress. I agree, and it's part of the reason why people of faith may want to resist such 'progress'... because it really isn't progress at all. Quite a lot of things we may consider to be innovations, that might make life easier, are not necessarily good in the long run. If we but have the eyes to see what the future holds, and what comes out of the tangled web we weave when we seek to innovate... we seek to control, to dominate. To be superior over nature, to take from it what we want. As though somehow, we are separate from it. MH gave a link about the perceived evils of agriculture. I did not read the link, but suspect that this is what it's about.

Nature is by it's nature evil - and as it says - "God sends the blessing of rain on the evil as well as the good". As for being conservative, I like to go to the base meaning of the word - to conserve what is good and true and tried by time. Inovation sometimes is the simple product of human boredom and a type of thanklessness, that is exhibited by those who are never satisfied with what is good and pleasant.

In my world I am totally grateful for small things - like a flock of jibbering sparrows in the midst of natural joy..or a raven that might call out to me in the morning - My father grew up in the wilds of far eastern Siberia - where orthodox Christianity was mixed with a bit of old shamanism...it's actually a good mixture - and lets the faithful have better understanding of God and the proof of Gods' exisitance through the natural world.

There is a great break from God and nature that exists today...it has been replaced by neo-industrial terms such as "environmentalism"...which have nothing to do with nature or the conservation of it what so ever...it is more about keeping a stainless steel tank tidy and clean and acting as if this environment is life sustianing..we do nothing to sustain our natural systems...people do not even know how to keep a common house plant alive..Nature is my peace and power...God and faith are the power line from this realm that run to me and other old school believers.

[Shwa]

Not a fair test.

But it is a very fair test, because you will know and it will make a determination on the validity of the present state of your faith.

I have bitten the apple of technology and exited Eden. There are folks who have never known it, and some say they're very happy.

Subjective, which is what the question is all about. Only you will know for sure... about you.

Certain ? No. I'm not certain of much.

But how would you find out? By testing a hypothesis or by decree? I think that is where the relationship between reason and faith have gone and decrees are no longer enough proof of the articles of faith.

For instance, I am pretty sure that this whole site is a prank by my old college buddies who keep posting under all of your names to prank me.

I guess when you don't know, anything is plausible. But is being "pretty sure" knowledge?

[charter.rights]

From "The Prophet", Kahlil Gibran

On Reason

"Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite."

"For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction."

"Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows -- then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."

And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky -- then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."

And since you are a breath in God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion."

On Religion (Faith)

"Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?"

"And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage."

"And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles.

Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.

And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain. You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees."

Edited September 30, 2011 by charter.rights

[Michael Hardner]

But it is a very fair test, because you will know and it will make a determination on the validity of the present state of your faith.

On my faith ? Not at all. The question is whether people in general believe in science because they make a deep assessment of how much science has helped humankind, or due to faith. It seems to me that 'faith' in this sense can also mean following the wisdom of the crowd, whether the crowd follows religion or science.

But how would you find out? By testing a hypothesis or by decree? I think that is where the relationship between reason and faith have gone and decrees are no longer enough proof of the articles of faith.

People don't have faith in papal bulls, but maybe something else has replaced that ? How about popular consensus on things, such as that cutting taxes helps the economy ?

I guess when you don't know, anything is plausible. But is being "pretty sure" knowledge?

Not for me... but I think about things too much.

The self-reflective person may consider where their knowledge ends, and where their faith (if any) begins. The non-self-reflective person may simply believe what others tell them... which is faith.

Maybe. This conversation is bringing out these ideas for me just now, although I think I've thought about them before. I point this out for two reasons: one, so that you know that I'm not arguing a dogmatic position but rather exploring these ideas with you and two, to thank you for taking me on a small journey of thought and learning here.

[cybercoma]

Thoughts ?

This is a great post and you raise some interesting questions and I believe the statement, "reason should explain and develop the truths of Faith and should propose them in scientific form," is the most telling and the most visible in life today. While some of the propositions of faith are mutually exclusive to the discoveries of science, which for this discussion I will consider the practical application of reason, it is faith that informs and guides reason. At times we must put faith into following a particular path of inquiry over another. Once on that path, reason may take over and guide us to related forms of inquiry; however, at those moments in science when there is a paradigm shift, it is faith that has turned those great minds towards a line of inquiry that lead to some of the greatest discoveries. In this way, reason can be borne of faith's inspiration and as such the two are not mutually exclusive.