Monday, September 15, 2014

The Interface of Reason and Faith

The Devil may be in the details of the definitions I am using:  reason is "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences"; faith is "a belief that is not based on proof."  Reason proceeds on the basis of skepticism, critical inquiry, and logic; faith works on the basis of credulity, a priori premises, and confessions.  In short, the two processes of thought are by definition two completely opposite ways of apprehending reality.  For example, reason says that a person who is dead and not in some kind of deep coma, remains dead; s/he does not return to a living state.  Faith, on the other hand, argues: true; in general a person who is dead does not come back to a living state, but there is one exception.  God "raised" Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.  Behind this particular Christian response lies the a priori premise of an unseen divine being, and the confession that Jesus was raised from the dead, both of which are evident only to a believer.  Reason, on the other hand, demands that some rational proof be offered to justify this exception to the way of all flesh.
               Faith pleads an open universe where God has elbow room to make things deviate from the observed usual.  But reason, willing even to accept the idea of an open universe where things may deviate from the usual, still demands proof that the deviation from the usual is based on natural cause and effect rather than by the manipulation of an invisible divine hand outside the natural order of things.
               At bottom, reason and faith are fundamentally two contradictory ways of viewing reality, but up to a point they can co-exist and in some cases even cooperatively in the same mind.  Where they part ways is in the deference given to the primary confessions of a given faith.  These a priori premises of the faith are non-negotiable, i.e., without them, by definition, there is no faith.  To join a given Faith one must give assent to its confessions, and if one changes one's mind after joining, then one can be taken before some official body of the organization on heresy charges (and, yes, such trials do take place with some regularity), and if convicted of heresy one either recants or is put out of the community.
               Apart from the primary confessions it is possible for a member of a given faith to practice a rational 21st century existence as long as one does not make the mistake of thinking there is a 1:1 correlation between what one believes is so and what is actually so.  Should one make that mistake, alibis will be required to accommodate the difference between belief and actuality.  For example, Faith asserts "this is my Fathers' world," i.e., God controls it, and can be expected to act in the best interest of the created order.  Yet we also experience in the world pain, disease, natural disasters, and tragedy.  How can that be reconciled with a benevolent God controlling the universe?  When one comes to the point of recognizing that a disconnection exists between "good" God and dangerous creation, the disconnect must be bridged to enable one to hold on to both concepts at the same time.
               One of the many alibis explaining away this phenomenon is as follows:  The world was originally created as a benign place. We, however, now live in a fallen creation because of Adam's willful sin.  The creation will, however, in the end be redeemed (Romans 8:18-23), but such a belief does not solve the problem of God's failure to render benevolent care to the creation and its creatures in the here and now.  Here is another: Whatever bad happens to people is for their benefit.  The word "bad" used in this connection is really a misnomer; for the tragedies that come upon humans can be explained as part of God's refining process through which human beings grow and improve.  So the "bad" is really a "good."  Such a solution to the problem, however, turns God into a stern disciplinarian who shapes his creatures through pain and suffering—a far cry from a kind and caring "Father" (compare Luke 11:11-12).
               When the alibis can no longer bridge the gap between benevolent deity and dangerous world, a fundamentally different way of viewing reality is required, and a gap appears in the confessional wall sheltering the faithful from the insistent voice of reason.  We surrender items of personal religious belief with great difficulty, yet reason persistently continues its nagging and prodding.
               How do you see it?
 
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

9 comments:

Lucinda H. Kennaley said...

Thought provoking, as usual!

Anonymous said...

"For Marcion, the God of the 'Old Testament' was part of the problematic character of the world, a world full of violence and injustice, and not the source of the solution brought by Jesus, through whom (the Most High) God was announcing a plan to intervene in the world's affairs and 'save' those who wished to be rescued. He concluded that the God of Moses was not the God of Jesus. Marcion was far from alone in this opinion. Among his followers and the various communities of so-called 'Gnostic' Christians, it was probably the majority opinion in the second century." [parentheses mine] (BeDuhn, J. "Marcion, Forgotten Church Father and Inventor of the New Testament," The 4thR, 27:3, Sept-Oct 2014, 3ff.).
So Marcion did not see a rational disconnect between the violence of Yahweh/ Elohim and the injustices of the world. He did see a rational disconnect between the message and purposes of Jesus and that God. Orthodox Christianity through the centuries, on the other hand, has said that there is no disconnect between the God of Moses and the God of the world and Jesus, but there is a disconnect caused by human sin or the violation of trust.
Here's an unknown quantity: to what degree did Jesus think of the "Father" as the God of Moses?

Anonymous said...

I understand and agree with your premise, Charlie. Reason, though, can be a boring proposition, I think. Diversions like the insanely popular Harry Potter (and other fantasies) can transfer many into a "spirit world," if only for a few hours. I wonder if this is not what church does, providing an escape to another "world." I am reminded of Robert M. Price's comments in "When Faith Meets Reason," (edited by Charles Hedrick) when he mentions, p. 45, "I rejoice to sing the great hymns, to repeat the litany, to receive the Eucharist, to be a Christian."

I tend to think that the faith many have in, for instance, a god, are conditional. (It doesn't sound like pistis to me!) The Sufi saying "Believe in God but keep your camel tied" comes to mind. A sick person might pray to his or her god, but he or she certainly is quick to consult a physician. Faith is conditional. Likewise, people who say they "believe in" hell and heaven as actual locations don't really believe in a three-tiered universe with Earth at the core; they've seen the world from cameras in space.

I had quite a bit of contemplative fun with this weblog. Thanks!
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Anonymous said...

I apologize Charlie, I forgot to put my name on the second post.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa

Anonymous said...

While assisting my wife this afternoon with making cookies for the local animal shelter fashion show fund raiser, I happened to see Steve Harvey, during his advice giving session, tell a woman that she was waking up depressed and without direction because she was out of touch with "God's purpose" for her. Now he could have used the phase "life's purpose" or "your own unique innate purpose."

Where does faith cross over to reason? (1) In "God's purpose" both terms assume a transcendent unseen unproven reality requiring faith. (2) In "life's purpose" the second term is unproven, but we all know "living." But is living a series of events or is there an unseen all encompassing continuity called "Life," another way to say "God," and is it personal or impersonal. (3) In "your own unique innate purpose" the second term is unproven but each of us is self-aware of our own personal and interpersonal being in the context of life/Life.

In each of these instances "purpose" is an assumed reality based on faith in its unseen existence. But that faith has some foundation; we choose to search for and find purpose because it fulfills and satisfies a felt need, and that reinforces the idea of purpose.

The first option requires some type of "revelation" from outside one's self-search to find purpose. The second and third options suggest that one will become aware of purpose through a self-search which includes an accumulation of experience. In reality, someone may know at age 3 that they must have a life as a professional dancer, and someone else may discover life as a poet at age 60, and someone else may be drawn to architecture as a teen.

Will "purpose" disappear if "God" disappears from our language, probably not, because "life" takes over, but can life or Life, in its immanent or transcendent form, be more successful in stopping our human inclination to violate trust?

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
I am afraid your Mr. Harvey misled the lady. In my view the possibilities of life, as a potentially endless succession of days, stretch out before us, and it is up to us and us alone to make sense of these possibilities in the best way we can. Finding a singular purpose in life is like trying to guess the weather, it seems to me. Purpose is not to be searched for anyway, rather it must be invented by us and us alone, and likely one's sense of purpose will change several times in the course of a life to meet the changing conditions we encounter in life.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie,
I very much agree with your affirmation that "one's sense of purpose changes to meet the changing conditions of life." There may be some ground rule purposes that hold up most of the time: walk the second mile with your adversary, be faithful to a trust, be true to yourself, and so forth.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
I am sure it is true that there are "truisms" by which many people live. But even these can be, and often are, replaced (did you watch the series "Breaking Bad"?). The three you mention are not inevitably followed unerringly. The middleclass religiously oriented young man who joins the Green Berets or Rangers will not "walk a second mile" with his adversary. And the CIA recruit in the clandestine services will surely not be :faithful to a trust"--they are called upon to exploit the enemy. Context is everything. Your third "truism" presents a problem in understanding, for it could simply mean put yourself first in everything. But likely you understand it to mean that one should be true to those moral principles to which one holds and not deviate. But even deeply held principles change depending on the context--see the little book by Joseph Fletcher, "Situation Ethics." It is because of the fact that ethical decisions are not always clear that many people have elevated the Bible to a religious icon, the Word of God, to help bring clarity to their ethical decisions.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie, I agree with your assessment. I am not familiar with the series "Breaking Bad." I do recall that Fletcher's book was assigned reading in Seminary in 1966, seemed to be either embraced or derided. I found it to be a breath of fresh air. As you indicate, survival contexts do seem to change the rules. It's certainly more effective to "walk the second mile" and "make friends with your accuser on the way to court" before both get to the lock n' load zone.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.