Jump to content

Faith and rationality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ungtss (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 14 May 2005 (→Relationship between faith and rationality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 the Summa Theologica, by Thomas Aquinas. There, Aquinas defended a view of faith which he asserted can be supported by evidence.

Relationship between faith and rationality

There are a number of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

  • Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, since there is no way to test any of the above, there is no way to know anything unless we are first willing to have faith in our senses and reason.
  • Faith as unparsimonious belef: In this view, faith is seen as those beliefs that are unparsimonious, because Occam's Razor would remove them as being more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence. Accordingly, faith is seen as unnecessary and unreasonable with respect to rationality;
  • Faith as making claims that contradict rationality: In this view, faith is seen as those views that one holds despite evidence and reason to the contrary. Accordingly, faith is seen as pernicious with respect to rationality, as it requires counterfactual belief;
  • Faith as beliefs regarding issues beyond the realm of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues which science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing. Accordingly, faith is seen as complementing rationality, by providing answers to questions that would otherwise be unanswerable;

Various justifications and criticisms

The justifications for faith found in the responses of religious scholars and apologists generally are based on semantic strategies:

  1. Less semantically precise definitions of rationalism that allow faith to be accommodated.
  2. A more expansive definition of faith to include faith as a belief that rests on logical proof or material evidence.
  3. 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 deity. For example, Fideism specifically recommends that one not be rational.

See also

Apologetics and philosophical justifications of faith as rational

Criticisms of faith as rational

Historical overview of the relationship between faith and reason

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Faith_and_rationality&oldid=13716544"