Transcript Document

Proof of God?
Inquiries into the Philosophy of Religion
A Concise Introduction
Chapter 12
Faith and Reason
By
Glenn Rogers, Ph.D.
Copyright
©
2012
Glenn Rogers
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
1. What is the difference between faith and reason and what is
the relationship between them?
2. Is it necessary to have reasons for what one believes?
3. If one has reasons for what he believes, does he need faith?
4. Does reason make faith irrelevant?
5. Does faith make reason irrelevant?
These are some of the questions related to the topic usually
discussed as part of the philosophy of religion under the heading
of faith and reason.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
What is the difference between faith and reason and how are they
related to each other?
According to some, there is not much of a relationship between faith
and reason. Faith is something they believe and they do not need
reasons for believing it. They have faith. For them, faith is faith and
reason is reason. For the areas of their lives where faith is what
matters (God and religion) reason is not important.
For others, faith is rationally rooted and has to do with active
believing. It involves trusting or having confidence in something or
someone, so much so that their faith impacts how they live.
Reason is the logical or rational justification that serves as the
foundation for one’s faith. Why do I believe this or that? I believe this
or that for this reason, and this reason, and this reason. Reason is
the rational justification that underlies one’s faith.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Is it necessary to have reasons for the faith one has?
What if one person has faith that X and another has faith that not
X. X and not X are polar opposites and both cannot be true or
valid regardless of the faith believers may have.
Simply because someone has faith in something does not mean
that thing is true or valid or right.
Someone may fervently believe that 3 + 3 = 7. We know,
however, that their belief, no matter how fervent, does not make
it so.
Faith is not and cannot be self-validating.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
For most people, the answer to the question, is it necessary to
have reasons for the faith one has, the answer would be, yes, it
is essential.
This person understands that without rational justification for
what one believes one can believe that which makes no
sense—such as the moon is made of green cheese. If humans
are rational beings they need to be rational, living as rational
people, which includes having reasons for what they believe and
what they do.
To have beliefs without rational justification amounts to beliefs
that are irrational or non-rational.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Does reason make faith irrelevant? No. Reason provides faith
with a foundation. For example, having rational justification for
believing that God exists does not in any way minimize the faith
one has in God as God. Faith is not irrational; it makes sense.
Faith is built on a solid foundation of rationality.
Unfortunately, there are some people of faith, who also happen
to be philosophers, who do not agree. Kierkegaard is probably
the best known.
The Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard believed
that much of the content of one’s [Christian] faith system was
incompatible with reason and that to “believe” one had to
suspend reason
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Religious belief based on “faith” that is not grounded in reason is
known as Fideism.
Such a faith might be described as transrational.
However, I believe Kierkegaard was mistaken and will attempt to
demonstrate why.
Faith can and must be rationally justifiable.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason
It is often said that knowledge is comprised of true justified
belief. What does that mean, that knowledge has to do with true
justified belief?
First, if you are to have what can rightly be called knowledge,
what you know must be true. For instance, you cannot know
that 3 + 3 = 7 because it does not.
You might think you know it. You might believe it, but you
cannot know that which is not true. For you to know something
it must be true. So while it is impossible to know that 3 + 3 = 7,
it is possible to know that 3 + 3 = 6, because that is true.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason
Second, your belief (in whatever is under consideration, lets say 3 + 3
= 6) must be justified. There must be a good reason for believing
what you believe.
If I were to ask you why you believe 3 + 3 = 6 and you replied, “I don’t
know, I just do,” you would not have knowledge that 3 + 3 = 6. You
believe it does, but you do not know it does. What you believe
happens to be correct but it is not justified and therefore is not
knowledge.
If, however, you said, “I know that 3 + 3 = 6 because I worked it out in
my head,” or, “I put three blocks on the table and then put three more
blocks on the table and then counted them, effectively adding 3 + 3
and saw that they equaled 6,” then you would have what can rightly be
called knowledge because your belief that 3 + 3 = 6 is justified.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason
What, then, is the relationship between faith (or belief) and
knowledge? One can believe without knowing. That is, one can
have a belief regarding something without it being true and one
can believe something, hopefully something true, without the
rational justification that would move it from the realm of belief to
knowledge.
Which is better, belief or knowledge? I think most people would
say it is better to know rather than to merely believe. But
knowledge is harder to come by than belief. Why? Because
knowledge requires rational justification and belief does not.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason
The problem is that many people are convinced that there are a
great many things that are beyond knowing, that we cannot
achieve what can rightly be called knowledge about those
things, and must, therefore, be satisfied with merely believing.
While it must be the case that there are some things that are
beyond knowing, many people abandon the search for truth and
justification too easily and too early, settling for fideism when
real knowledge is available if they would just keep searching for
it.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Properly Basic Belief
A belief that is rational though not based on a prior rationally
justified belief (as described above) is said to be properly basic.
What I have said regarding belief requiring rational justification is a
philosophical idea known as foundationalism. It is as old as the
Stoics of ancient Greece.
The need for an absolutely certain foundation, a rational justification
beyond doubt, was what drove Descartes to look for an indubitable
truth upon which he could build a philosophical system. He found it
in his own ontological reality. Foundationalism has been the
dominant way of thinking about questions related to important
philosophical questions, especially metaphysical questions, since
long before Descartes.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Properly Basic Belief
However, there are some beliefs that are so basic that they do
not need to be justified by any other fact or reality.
For instance, my belief (knowledge) that I have a headache is an
insight that is directly available to me and does not need to be
founded on anything other than my awareness of the pain in my
head.
My belief that I have a headache is, therefore, properly basic. It
does not need any additional justification (no logical arguments)
to be a rational belief.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Properly Basic Belief
Plantinga, writing about properly basic beliefs, provides several
illustrations of beliefs that are properly basic:
1. Arithmetical truths: 2 + 1 = 3.
2. Simple truths of logic such as: no man is both married and
unmarried.
3. Perhaps the generalizations of simple truths of logic such as:
for any proposition p the conjunction of p with its denial is false.
4. And certain propositions expressing identity and diversity, for
example:
4a. redness is distinct from greenness,
4b. the property of being prime is distinct from the property
of being composite,
4c. the proposition, all men are mortal, is distinct from the
proposition, all mortals are men
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Properly Basic Belief
One can see from Plantinga’s examples that properly basic beliefs
are, generally speaking, things that are self-evident and therefore
that do not need to be based on any prior rationally justified belief.
They may not always be as simple as number 1 above, and may
require some thoughtful reflection, such as number 3. But upon
that reflection, the truth emerges as properly basic and in no need
of further justification.
Plantinga goes on to specify that from a classical foundationalist
point of view, a proposition is properly basic if it is: 1) self-evident,
2) incorrigible (i.e. not capable of being corrected), or 3) evident to
the senses.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Properly Basic Belief
The question is this: is belief in God properly basic? Is it, 1)
something that is evident to the senses? Is it, 2) an incorrigible
belief, one about which you cannot be wrong, like believing that
2 + 2 = 4? Or is belief in God, 3) a self-evident truth? Does one
simply know that God exists?
Let us consider each in turn.
1. Since God is not a physical being he certainly cannot be
evident to the senses. Normally, God cannot be seen, heard,
touched, and so forth. Generally speaking, belief in God cannot
be properly basic from that point of view.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Properly Basic Belief
2. Is belief in God incorrigible, the kind of thing you simply cannot be
wrong about? Some might say that it is. Would not such a claim,
though, require some sort of an explanation to demonstrate that it is,
indeed, incorrigible? Producing such evidence would likely be
difficult.
3. Is belief in God self-evident? Perhaps. But properly basic belief in
God can be confused with other kinds of belief. For instance, if
someone were asked, how is God’s existence self-evident to you, and
they responded—Well just look at how complex the world is. It
couldn’t have just happened. Someone had to create it this way on
purpose. God did it. To me it is self-evident—that person’s belief in
God is not properly basic. His belief is not self-evident. It is based on
a teleological argument, a prior rational justification—that cosmic order
and complexity grow out of intelligent design.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Rational Justification
It is clear that something has always existed. The question is, what
has always existed. There appear to be only two options: matter or
mind.
Either mind or matter is eternal. Since we know the cosmos has not
always existed but came into being some 13.8 billions years ago,
matter is not a good candidate for that which has always existed.
If we allow that matter might have been that which always existed and
that it alone is responsible for everything that now exists, we run into
serious difficulty, for part of what exists now is consciousness and
mind. There is simply no way for non-conscious matter to produce
(account for) consciousness and thought.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Rational Justification
Materialists who claim that consciousness simply arose are
making a claim for which there is not one single piece of
evidence—empirical or rational. The claim that consciousness
just developed, that brains developed and then more complex
brains developed and consciousness simply evolved, is a
fantastic fairytale that is utterly without support.
Arguments in Chs. 2-4 show that there is sound rational
justification for believing in the existence of God.
Proof of God?
Faith and Reason
Rational Justification
Are faith and reason mutually exclusive? No. One can be a
person of faith and a reasonable person who can give reasons
for why he or she is a person of faith, as well as specific rational
justification for specific features of a given faith system. To
deny this is to fail to understand either reason or faith or both.
There is no conflict between faith and reason and theists need
to stop backing away from rational presentations of what they
believe and why. Of course this requires that careful attention is
paid to what one believes and why.