Faith and rationality: Difference between revisions
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Critics have responded by pointing out that this tactic is nothing more than a [[special pleading]] and hence makes a fallacious argument. |
Critics have responded by pointing out that this tactic is nothing more than a [[special pleading]] and hence makes a fallacious argument. |
||
Another notable strategy to justify faith as rational has been to attack the [[epistemology|epistemological]] underpinnings of rationality by claiming that much unrelated knowledge enjoying wide acceptance is accepted as a matter of faith as well. One example is that belief in distant, obscure countries rests solely faith since there is no direct evidence available so we must rely on the statements people who claim first hand knowledge of the distant country. By associating faith with widely accepted knowledge, those who make this argument hope to achieve an undermining of what constitutes [[Epistemology#Justified_true_belief|justified true belief]], a blurring of the distinction between [[Epistemology#Justification|knowledge]] and [[belief]], and to raise the stock of faith as a method for ascertaining knowledge by associating it with successful instances. Critics point out that When we accept the evidence from others, we must have reason to believe that they know the truth, and that there's an important distinction between testimony of individuals that has the possibility of being corroborated and that which has no such possibility. In the case of distant lands, corroboration comes from others with first hand knowledge. But when someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells us what god demands, we have no reason to accept it as true. |
Another notable strategy to justify faith as rational has been to attack the [[epistemology|epistemological]] underpinnings of rationality by claiming that much unrelated knowledge enjoying wide acceptance is accepted as a matter of faith as well. One example is that belief in distant, obscure countries rests solely on faith since there is no direct evidence available so we must rely on the statements people who claim first hand knowledge of the distant country. By associating faith with widely accepted knowledge, those who make this argument hope to achieve an undermining of what constitutes [[Epistemology#Justified_true_belief|justified true belief]], a blurring of the distinction between [[Epistemology#Justification|knowledge]] and [[belief]], and to raise the stock of faith as a method for ascertaining knowledge by associating it with successful instances. Critics point out that When we accept the evidence from others, we must have reason to believe that they know the truth, and that there's an important distinction between testimony of individuals that has the possibility of being corroborated and that which has no such possibility. In the case of distant lands, corroboration comes from others with first hand knowledge. But when someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells us what god demands, we have no reason to accept it as true. |
||
Other people of faith have adopted the position that faith is implicitly irrational and have embraced the putative irrationality of faith as a demonstration of devotion to one's beliefs and diety. For example, [[Fideism]] specifically recommends that one not be rational. |
Other people of faith have adopted the position that faith is implicitly irrational and have embraced the putative irrationality of faith as a demonstration of devotion to one's beliefs and diety. For example, [[Fideism]] specifically recommends that one not be rational. |
||
Revision as of 21:49, 17 February 2005
The philosophical doctrines of Rationalism and Rationality assert that all beliefs be justified by logic and/or material evidence and that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of god or the validity or value of religion; it only rejects any belief based on faith alone. Faith in this context is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. To be semantically precise, given the definitions of faith and rationalism, faith by definition cannot be rational.
This dilemma has long been a subject for religious scholars and apologists and many responses have been crafted. A well known justification for a rational basis for faith is found in Summa Theologica, by Thomas Aquinas. There, Aquinas defended a view of faith which he asserted can be supported by evidence.
Various justifications and criticisms
The justifications for faith found in the responses of religious scholars and apologists generally are based on semantic strategies:
- Less semantically precise definitions of rationalism that allow faith to be accommodated.
- A more expansive definition of faith to include faith as a belief that rests on logical proof or material evidence.
- A broadening of the definitions of proof, evidence, logic, rational, etc., to allow for a lower standard of proof.
Critics have responded by pointing out that this tactic is nothing more than a special pleading and hence makes a fallacious argument.
Another notable strategy to justify faith as rational has been to attack the epistemological underpinnings of rationality by claiming that much unrelated knowledge enjoying wide acceptance is accepted as a matter of faith as well. One example is that belief in distant, obscure countries rests solely on faith since there is no direct evidence available so we must rely on the statements people who claim first hand knowledge of the distant country. By associating faith with widely accepted knowledge, those who make this argument hope to achieve an undermining of what constitutes justified true belief, a blurring of the distinction between knowledge and belief, and to raise the stock of faith as a method for ascertaining knowledge by associating it with successful instances. Critics point out that When we accept the evidence from others, we must have reason to believe that they know the truth, and that there's an important distinction between testimony of individuals that has the possibility of being corroborated and that which has no such possibility. In the case of distant lands, corroboration comes from others with first hand knowledge. But when someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells us what god demands, we have no reason to accept it as true.
Other people of faith have adopted the position that faith is implicitly irrational and have embraced the putative irrationality of faith as a demonstration of devotion to one's beliefs and diety. For example, Fideism specifically recommends that one not be rational.
See also
External Links
Apologetics and philosophical justifications of faith as rational
- Faithquest.com published works of William Alston
- Faithandphilosophy.com] founded by William Alton, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Richard Mouw
- Society of Christian Philosophers founded again by William Alton, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Richard Mouw
- Faith, Reason, and Rationality a debate between Douglas Jones and Michael Shermer from Credenda Agenda, a publication of the Presbyterian Church
- Faith and reason the philosophy of religion website
Criticisms of faith as rational
- Irrational Faith Importanceofphilosophy.com