Are Faith and Reason Irreconcilable? by Martin Cothran

Are Faith and Reason Irreconcilable?

by Martin Cothran

IT is not unusual in today's postmodern world to hear people criticize the idea of "binaries"—the idea that things can be classed into two distinctive groups. The distinction between males and females, right or wrong, beautiful and ugly, true or false—all of these distinctions are now to be interrogated and seen as questionable.

And, of course, there are those who point out that the people who are opposed to thinking in binaries can be distinguished from people who don't oppose such thinking, which implies that there is at least one binary—that between people who oppose binaries and people who don't.

In the long history of human thought there has been much discussion about two things that have often been categorized as binaries: faith and reason. There are many people who think that these two things are irreconcilable. Are they right?

Let's first define our terms. What do we mean by "faith" and "reason"?

By the term "faith" we usually mean a sentiment of belief or trust. When I say, "I believe in him," it means I trust the person, usually based on what is already known about his character. But most often we use the term "faith" to refer to the religious faith we have in God. This is often how the word is used in the Bible. As Mortimer Adler once pointed out, "In the Old Testament, the term 'faith' has the sense of absolute steadfastness, assurance, and loyalty." The word "faith" does not refer to anything we can empirically prove or be certain about. We do not know that the person is as good or trustworthy as we think, or that God is God, but we believe.

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is famous for having characterized faith as a "leap." This has given us the expression "leap of faith." This conception of faith has been the cause of so many people considering faith to be a merely subjective thing, opposed to reason. We often think of the "leap of faith"

as something irrational: We have to "leap" because certainty. Most involve a level of uncertainty that reason won't take us where we want to go. must be bridged. In religious terms, most of us

The word "reason" also has several connotations. are certain that God exists in the philosophical

They range from the more strict sense of formal sense. But other than a few arguments that are logic to the broader idea of common sense. This understandable only by experienced philosophers, range of meanings can be seen in the way we use there are no logically demonstrable proofs of His words like "rational" and "irrational." Often we existence. There is always a gap between what we, characterize someone's action as "irrational" when as human beings, can know about God and what we what we really mean is that the action violates believe about God. common sense. And other times we mean it in the From the perspective of reason, if we take reason sense of being technically illogical. But if we in its more strict sense—that of deductive logic—we think of the word "reason" in realize very quickly that logic a sort of middle sense—one in itself requires faith to operate which it refers to beliefs that at all. The basic rules of logic a r e g e n e r a l l y g r o u n d e d i n (and this would be the case with logical thinking and respect for We often think of geometry as well) are based evidence—then we have the sense on assumptions which cannot in which it is used in expressions the "leap of faith" as themselves be proved. You can't like "faith and reason." Clearly these two terms— something irrational: We prove the truth of the law of non-contradiction, which is the "faith" and "reason"—refer to have to "leap" because central assumption of all logic: t wo different t hings. "Fait h" Saying "Logic is true" and "Logic relies on belief in unknowable reason won't take us is not true" cannot both be true things, and "reason" depends at the same time in the same on knowing certain things. But where we want to go. respect. There is no way to prove are they irreconcilable, as some the law at all. You take it on faith. people seem to think? Let's see if But logic alone will not get us there is a way the two can come very far. If we stay in the realm of together, first by approaching geometry, then logic is all we need. reason from the point of view of faith, and then by We have some axioms which we simply posit, and we approaching faith from the point of view of reason. use logic to infer all of our conclusions. There are also

We'll come at it from two opposite directions to see certain branches of philosophy (such as metaphysics) if, in fact, they are in opposition. that are similar. And there are aspects of physics which,

So, let's start from the most subjectivist view of being almost purely mathematical, rely very little on faith—the idea of faith as a "leap"—and see how far anything outside of the certain truths of math. toward reason we can get. We could ask the question: But most of the rest of the truths of this world are "What is the leap from and where is it to?" In other not this way. The natural sciences are a good example. words, when we leap from, say, a dock to a boat floating When we employ inductive or scientific on the water a few feet away, we are going from one reasoning, we look at all the specific cases of place or thing (the dock) to another (the boat). If we certain occurrences—say, the fact that bodies think carefully about this, we realize that faith is a leap with mass exercise an attraction to each other. We from probability to certainty. then conclude that there is a "law" of gravity. It is

When I consider jumping from the dock to the operative in every observation, always. We then say boat, I believe that I have a high probability of that all objects with physical mass "obey" this law. getting to the boat without falling in the water. But have we seen every case of objects with mass

But when I actually jump to the boat I leap, so to and how they behave toward each other at all times? speak, from the level of probability I have of doing Of course not. Induction simply convinces us to take it successfully (let's say 95%) to the certainty I have it on faith that all the cases we haven't observed once I have reached the dock (100%). The difference are the same as the ones we have observed. In this between the probability and the certainty (the sense, every scientific experiment is a leap of faith. remaining 5%) is faith, and it is only by exercising We know at one and the same time that faith is the it that I am able to get onto the boat. "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things In this respect, faith is a necessary element not seen" (Hebrews 11:1) and that we should be able to in any decision. Very few decisions involve give "a reason of the hope that is in [us]" (1 Peter 3:15). 1-877-862-1097