Skip to main content

Faith and Reason

Submitted by Ken Watts on Thu, 02/22/2007 - 13:49

My post two days ago, on the subject of emotion and reason, got me to thinking about some other false dichotomies in our culture.

Not least of these is the knee-jerk opposition of faith and reason.

A classic example of this is the believer's claim that the existence of God cannot be proven, but must be taken "on faith".

What exactly does this mean?

The usual explanation, usually unstated but implied, is that taking things on faith means believing them in spite of any evidence, or lack of evidence. This is usually unstated for very good reason—it's silly. We humans just don't go around believing things randomly.

A better explanation turns on the fact that the most common word for "faith" in the Bible actually means something like "trust". It's a relationship word, not an abstract one. You don't have faith in general, you have faith in a specific person, in this case, God.

Although this explanation is better, it still falls short, because it is difficult to explain how I can trust a person (even God) on the question of their own existence. Wouldn't I already have to know they existed in order to trust them?

What is hidden behind all of this faith language is a subtle shifting of responsibility. If I accept my religious views "on faith" I get to put the final responsibility for those views elsewhere: on the church, the Bible, God, etc.. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." "If it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me."

One of the things that makes this so attractive is that there is a certain air of humility about it. I'm not pretending to be the world's expert on these important issues—I'm just trusting in what God (the Bible, the pastor, the Pope) says.

The problem with this is that the responsibility cannot, ultimately, be shifted. I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw once. Two men, talking in an office setting. One says to the other, "but the policy manual can't be wrong—it says so, right here in the policy manual."

The cartoon doesn't tell us what's going on in the other person's head, but if it's relief I'd say he wasn't thinking too clearly.

At least that's what I think today.