1.1.6 Faith and Reason

Version 1.3 March 2013                                (Previous Version)

Some people conclude that we only find the truth through faith.

We need to distinguish between faith and revelation. 

·       Faith is adopting a position when there is no clear “proofâ€� that it is the correct position.  Having faith means adopting a belief when the objective grounds for believing it are not compelling.  

·       Revelation is a message that is revealed to us by God or some other supernatural being or force.  To be meaningful, revelation excludes any message that we could have worked out by ourselves.

In traditional religions, faith is often associated with a belief that the revelation is from God and that it is therefore true.  In the previous section we discussed revelation.  But faith doesn’t have to be concerned with a revelation from God.  We might have faith in humanity or faith in reason.

No religious group really suggests that we base our decisions about religion purely on faith alone – without any reasons at all. 

·       Some evangelical groups may say they advocate faith alone, but their behaviour is inconsistent with this position.

·       There are always reasons that we can list, otherwise the decision is completely random, has no justification at all, and there is nothing more to say about it.

·       People who choose to follow Jesus of Nazareth, or the Prophet Mohammed, based on faith, also say that they do so because of what they know about Jesus or Mohammed and the effect the choice has on their lives or the afterlife. 

We still need to consider faith alone as a way to discover the truth, because some people support it.

We summarise our conclusions on faith and reason as follows:

 

1.1.6.1 Faith in Spite of Reason

Some people think faith is adopting a belief in spite of the evidence, even though a rational analysis would lead us to NOT believe it.  This is often based on a misunderstanding. 

·       Many Christians and Muslims have faith in the Bible or the Qur’an as the literal word of God, and many believe that the world was created in six days, less than 10,000 years ago.  They believe this story is the literal truth, not an allegory, despite the explanations from science that the universe has existed for about 13 billon years since the big bang, and has been evolving ever since.

·       The misunderstanding is that: although some faith is required for each one of us to adopt our core beliefs and values, this does not require us to have faith in things that can be shown to be false.

·       Most qualified Christian theologians and Muslim scholars treat the six day creation story as an allegory, in which the essential point is that God created the universe and its main components (light, land, animals, humans), and, they say, the details of how this happened can be discovered by science.  Theologians and scholars accept that the original authors of these creation myths were not modern scientists, but believe that they were trying to express that God had a hand in it.

·       Some say their faith is justified because the Bible or the Qur’an were revealed by God, and his revelation must come first, so any “scienceâ€� or “historyâ€� that contradicts it must be wrong.  But as we discuss in the previous section (1.1.5) this position is untenable: we must be able to work out which revelation is the true one (the Bible or the Qur’an?), which interpretation is the best (literal or allegorical?) and whether these come from God or the Devil, so the revelation can’t come first.

1.1.6.2 Faith that is Consistent with Reason

We cannot “prove� anything in philosophy: we make choices.  The choices are made on faith.

·       We cannot prove that the universe is comprehensible: we take it on faith. 

We simply assume the universe behaves in an ordered way that can be discovered through rational inquiry.  We assume that if we were clever enough the universe would make some sort of sense, even though our current understanding is incomplete. 

·       We cannot prove that the truth is obtainable. 

There is significant evidence to the contrary, as well as in its favour: we take it on faith. 

·       We can’t rationally prove that being rational is the only way to discover the truth: we must have faith in reason.

·       Each of the major philosophical issues addressed here in Part 1 (truth, reality, god, minds, goodness and beauty) involves one or more core choices that reflect our core values, and these all require a degree of faith.

·       Often there is insufficient evidence and no clear chain of reasoning toward a definite conclusion.  Sometimes reason and evidence lead inherently to a dilemma: then we must make a choice. 

·       We cannot prove that it is reasonable for any one individual to be compassionate and merciful: we take it on faith. 

·       Sometimes we can use general principles that may not be directly applicable to guide our choices.  Other times we can’t.  We have to be aware of our selfish desires.  We have to live with the outcomes of the choices we make – we have no choice but to do that.

·       These are judgements that demonstrate what we value.  If we valued something else more highly then we would make different choices.  They are evidence of our basic attitudes.

We phrase our current conclusion on this issue as follows:

1.1.6.3 Faith that is Confirmed by Reason

People who accept the main principles and results of science do so for a list of reasons.  Science is based on the evidence, it works in practice and it follows guidelines that have been found to work in the past.  But having said all that, we ultimately take it on faith that the whole thing works.  It does not take much faith to do this, because scientific principles work very well when it comes to explaining how most of the universe works.

Our analysis of global beliefs shows that ours is not a blind faith, in spite of the evidence.

We must reason about our faith.  We must look at all the evidence and apply as much reason as possible, and wherever reason and the evidence takes us, there we should go. 

·       Once we have determined what values will be the basis of our decisions, the vast majority of practical questions we need to resolve do not involve any degree of arbitrariness or “faithâ€�. 

·       There are of course practical questions and issues of value where reason and the evidence don't lead to a firm conclusion.  So sometimes we must make a decision hoping it's for the best.  But these situations seem to be more akin to risk management – making decisions when we are not aware of all the facts or can't totally predict what will happen – rather than having “faithâ€�.

·       If we conclude, over time, that our choices have resulted in desirable outcomes, then we could say our faith in these choices increases.  But if our choices lead to undesirable outcomes, then we need to re-examine them, regardless of what degree of faith we may have previously had, to look at the evidence now available to us and reconsider the reasons for our past choices. 

 

1.1.6.4 Faith that Reaches Reasonable Conclusions

We must acknowledge that many of the core values that many people espouse are based primarily on faith rather than reason and the evidence.  Nevertheless, many of these faith based core values are the same as those espoused here.  The differences are often smaller than many people believe.

Most religions value: truth, life, love, responsibility, hope.

Some religions, or at least some branches of religions also value: diversity, equality and beauty.

It is worth noting that many religious groups actively oppose diversity, equality and beauty:

·       Some Evangelical Christians, some Muslims and some in the Hindutva movement don’t value diversity: they oppose homosexuality, they don't support a pluralistic society, shun or exclude non-believers, and punish erstwhile believers who leave the faith.

·       Most traditional religions are sexist: they don't support gender equality: Catholic Christians cannot have female priests and Pope John Paul II said the issue mustn’t even be discussed.  Hinduism traditionally supported the caste system.  (On the other hand, some, not all, Protestant Christians firmly promote equality and support women priests, gay marriage and social justice.)

·       Many religious people have destroyed artistic works from other religions or that are secular:

Ø  Over the centuries Christians have destroyed vast amounts of “heathenâ€� art and history.

Ø  In the 1400s and 1500s many non-Catholic, Jewish and Muslim books were burnt by the Spanish Inquisition.

Ø  Many Mayan books and artworks were burnt in 1562 by the Spanish Bishop of Yucatan.

Ø  In the 1600s in the USA, various books opposing the Puritans or by Quakers were burnt.

Ø  Many writings were destroyed by Communists during their rule in Russia in the mid-1900s.

Ø  The Muslim Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 destroyed huge Buddhist statues at Bamiyan.

On the other hand, many Christian churches and Muslim mosques are among the most beautiful buildings in the world and followers have risked their lives to preserved art works.

So while we must remain aware of religious and political groups that oppose our core values, it is reasonable to cooperate with those whose values are consistent with ours, even if they arrived at their values via unjustified faith in some religion or revelation, or in a political or national doctrine.

We currently phrase our conclusion on this issue as follows: