The false dichotomy between faith and reason
Thought must have a foundation of beliefs in order to process information. Being that we are constantly forced into making choices in our lives, other than schizophrenia, we have no option but to embrace a set of beliefs to predicate our decisions upon. Although there are many ideologies to form a foundation of thought, they can be reduced into two basic categories, herein referred to as spiritual and material, or sometimes distinguished as faith and reason. Keep in mind that these terms are not precise seeing that the materialist often shows a spiritual side and does place faith in something, and the spiritual man is not without reason, though he trusts that there are things existing which cannot be seen or proven by man.
Because there are conflicts between spiritual and material foundations of thought, the tendency will be to trust one over the other as the predominate basis in making choices. For in making life’s decisions there needs to be consistency, and you cannot establish a direction based upon complete uncertainty. It is easy for one to say they are agnostic, but when making certain choices, decisions must be made by faith or against it – although, the rejection of a faith is often based upon an opposing faith, or faith against faith. For we all either hope in things unseen, or attempt to base trust solely on what we believe is proven or known to exist. Otherwise we are tossed to and fro, and are unstable and confused. The old proverb, “You cannot serve God and mammon, for you will love the one and hate the other, or despise the one and cleave to the other” holds. The gravitation therefore, is to either faith or reason as the primary basis for thought, although faith is hardly without reason, nor is reason completely devoid of faith.
A belief system based solely upon the science of reason is more limited than a system based upon faith in a Creator, in that, man as the exclusive source of knowledge is limited. Since a materialistic system of thought seeks to exclude things that cannot be verified, gaps in knowledge are created which must be bridged in order to be logical. This creates a paradox, for to fill these gaps in knowledge, the materialist must resort to faith. The faith of the materialist, however, is an antifaith. His thought process is not in the spiritual but the in the physical. He is, therefore, forced to manufacture knowledge based on circumstantial evidence, or create and rely upon theories and assumptions in order to connect pieces of knowledge and arrive at any explanations. These explanations often tend to create even more questions which in turn demand an even greater faith from the materialist. Thus, in many cases, the materialist is no less believing, no less devoted, no less fanatical, nor any less evangelical than his religious counterpart. When an idea gains enough traction in intellectual circles it becomes widely accepted as a reality; therefore, many things that are treated as fact are unknown to man.
H.G. Wells, whom I have often cited, a man sold solely on reason, exhibits his faith in the following words,
“There was no Creation in the past, we begin to realize, but eternally there is creation; there was no Fall to account for the conflict of good and evil, but a stormy ascent. Life as we know it is a mere beginning….“ “……We have still barely emerged from among the animals in their struggle for existence. We live only in the early dawn of human self-consciousness and in the first awakening of the spirit of mastery.”
This is a statement of faith and a religious expression of secular-humanism wherein mankind is essentially “God” evolving. To further illustrate this religious aspect of secular humanism embraced by materialists we can continue with Wells’s writing where he says,
“Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality…..……The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.”
Thus accordingly, creation is and of itself; there is nothing more. Man’s sole purpose as “part of a greater being” is to give himself to the “being” for the advancement of mankind to higher levels. As individuals alone we have little or no value but are as single cells in an immortal body of collective humanity. Our sole purpose of existing is to help advance the immortal body of civilization through the stages of evolution. Cells die, but the body lives; collectively, we are the supreme being. This line of thinking puts mankind above all and invites justification for man to act as God, to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, who should live and who should die. The lives of individuals become dispensable if deemed a liability to the advancement or benefit of the greater body. This rejection of faith creates a faith – albeit, an atheistic one – with religious aspects.
Wells was an understudy of Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog“) and his writing exemplifies the strain of thought that was widespread in academia in the early 1900s. Wells was not an originator of this thought but was indoctrinated into this line of thinking in the universities and rejected faith in God.
It was this worldview which gave birth to the eugenics movement to facilitate evolution in the process whereby the “superior” elements supersede the weaker. The ideology spread worldwide and particularly throughout institutions of “higher” learning. The introduction of this into Germany was inspirational in the Nazis’ determination that the Aryans were the most advanced race, and thus, not only had the right, but an obligation to the future of humanity to supersede the inferior elements which were destroying the world and slowing the evolutionary process. Only those deemed the most perfect had value, the lives of all others were disposable and worthy of life only as long and in as much as they were useful in the advancement of the Übermensch.
By this time, the Soviet Union also had already embraced the concept of perfection in a material world, but more emphasis was placed on social perfection rather than genetic superiority. The result, however, was no better under Communism than it was under Nazism; but even though the Communists were responsible for many more deaths than the Nazis, communism did not attain to the same degree of stigma. As a result, today even in western societies Marxist ideologies are woven into progressive socialist agendas and Darwinism is foundational in governmental education.
The words of Vladimir Lenin, “We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth,” may be well and widely accepted throughout universities everywhere.
Well over a hundred million lives have fallen victim to materialists ideologies which are essentially based on the concept that man is the supreme being and that the supreme men are “God.” How this repeats itself in the future is yet to be seen, but it will be seen if man continues down that road.
Arbitrary Morality
According to secular humanism, not only have the species been evolving, but law is “living and breathing” and also evolving. For law, having no source other than from those persons who create it, is relative, arbitrary, and at this point incomplete. Thus, whatever seems the most expedient or beneficial at the moment is deemed acceptable. The problem however, is that what benefits some may be totally devastating for others.
From this conflict of interests comes the concept of the “common good” wherein the benefits for society as a whole are weighed against the rights, freedoms, or even the lives of those whose suffering would seem small in comparison to the benefits reaped by society. In all actuality, however, the benefit of the elite ruling class carries more weight than the “common good” of society, and it is arrogantly viewed by them as being the same.
If a few years of holocaust purges out the “corrupt” and “inferior” elements of humanity and brings a thousand year reign of a superior and more perfect civilization, then so be it, it was merely a part of the process. Besides, how much suffering was avoided by eliminating the “sub-humans” and their posterity who were spared being born? The overall gain is a plus. This type of rational produced by reason absent faith – although, as stated before, the two cannot be separated – disintegrates morality. Thus, what you actually have is a faith against faith or, if you prefer, a faith of anti-faith.
Faith or Reason
Reason absent faith has proven itself a force of destruction. By the same token, faith absent reason is no less destructive than reason without faith. Man cannot live without faith; he is intellectually paralyzed without it. On the other hand, by faith alone without reason, man is also lost. Only when knowledge is perfect can reason be perfect; and faith that is not misplaced possesses the same virtue as knowledge.
For as many as have been destroyed by the reasoning of the Godless, a great many have also been destroyed by faith in a “God.” What the two have in common, however, is materialism. For the as the Godless have based their ideology upon the physical, those religions who were responsible for the murder of countless individuals did the same by establishing their faith in the physical realm. For although they professed to be spiritual, in practice they were operating outside of the spiritual realm, applying physical actions in a worldly existence. This was true of the Church of Rome as well as it is of Islam today.
The evangelical Christian may preach about hell, but the Islamic fanatic believes it his duty to expedite your arrival as soon and as horrifically as possible. The faith of the former is in the spiritual; he awaits a kingdom, and judgment is carried out by God alone in his time. On the other hand, the latter acts in the stead of God, to execute judgment and establish a physical kingdom of “God” on earth. This was true also of Roman Catholicism in the Dark Ages, of both the Nazis and Communists, and it is the vision of “progressive” authoritarian elitists today.
Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator, who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!
Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it did the opposite. Notwithstanding, reason was used as a servant of faith to help bring invisible principles into a physical world, not that they would become physical, but that they would remain as a constant foundation. For if we are to avoid catastrophe we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of these two comes from faith.
[Authors note: I realize the preceding is somewhat a detour from other writings posted here in that it is more spiritual and philosophical in nature, nonetheless, I have written as I was so inspired.]
RA Sprinkle
Very well said
I especially like: “the redeeming quality of these two comes from faith.” I am reminded of a (much misunderstood) verse from the Tao Te Ching, which urges: “Discard wisdom, give up cleverness, and the people will benefit a hundredfold…” It qualifies this later by saying that “These mere adornments are not enough to live by. They must give way to something more solid.” Ultimately, the question of Faith *or* Reason is a false dichotomy, which you’ve exposed nicely.
I liked this:
“Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!”
I agree.
I don’t think I agree with this:
“Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it did the opposite. Reason was used as a servant of faith to bring invisible principles into a physical world, not that they would become physical, but that they would remain as a constant. For if we are to avoid catastrophe we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of these two comes from faith.”
It is true that “reason was used as a servant of faith”, yet I would posit that that “type” of reason, best displayed by Berkeley, was most often in error.
This is not to say that reason abhors religion. It falls more into the category of the objective versus the normative. If you are going to argue normative values then any basis you use to butress your arguments can be accepted or rejected simply as that. You must offer that all homes are more attractive with white picket fences along their borders. But any argument qua argument is based purely upon an aeshetic appreciation that is yours, and yours alone. Repetition, volume, accolytes make your opinion more valid than any other opinion. And while I myself may agree that white picket fences are cute as all get out, doesn’t move to validate either your or my opinion.
Ulitimately, the dichotomy of Faith and Reason remains the biggest obstacle to meaningful argument.
What if the idea that “faith” must necessarily fall under a system of normative values is simply an assumption?
Faith.
Normative values.
Assumption.
Game. Set. Match.
Not that I’m saying anything about faith, normative values and your assumptions are, by any sort of definition, bad in-and-of-themselves.
Simply that belief is not knowledge. It can be good, reassuring, even uniting. Just not the same thing.
Loved your website. Wish I was an artier guy.
Skarbutt:
“Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it did the opposite. Reason was used as a servant of faith to bring invisible principles into a physical world, not that they would become physical, but that they would remain as a constant.
Reason alone cannot do what it can when it is combined with faith. Invisible principles must first be comprehended and believed in before reason can become a voice for their cause.
On the other hand, one can have faith in almost anything and their reason will follow. The difference however, is the fruit that comes from faith in something that is true is evidence that faith is not misplaced. ”We hold these truths to be self-evident”
The fruit of delusion tends to be a destructive force, although, those who have faith in a falsehood are very pragmatic in their reasoning, but it will fail them.
Now consider this, reason is only perfect where knowledge is perfect. However, reason may also be perfect where faith is perfect. Faith is perfect where it trusts in a truth that cannot be physically proven.
It is essential then that faith be not misplaced, otherwise reason is shipwrecked.
The false dichotomy that is often drawn between faith and reason is this; Faith is a belief. Reason is not a belief, but it is a system of thought to arrive at a belief. Once a belief is established one’s reasoning will tend to serve that belief whatever it is.
The fruit that follows is evidence whether that faith is worthy of service. – Skarbutt
“Simply that belief is not knowledge. It can be good, reassuring, even uniting. Just not the same thing.”
If faith is correct in what it believes it has the virtue of knowledge. In other words, if one comprehends and holds to a fact that cannot be proven, it has the same power as knowledge in that person’s life.
The key is that faith must be representative of something that really exists, faith must founded on an invisible truth and nothing more or nothing less.
I agree. Faith is representative of something that really exists. Your description of what you’re experiencing may be inferior to another’s, but you are attempting to describe something.
As far as you succeed in describing what you experience you move the conversation forward, in what could allow us to experience that thing as fact. Whether or not you are successful is not, in my estimation, the most important quality of the conversation. The most important part is that we are able to converse at all.
Again I’ll recite, “This is not to say that reason abhors religion.” That would be like saying that poetry abhors metaphor. Or that satire sans similes is superior. I would offer this:
Faith steps in to fill the gaps between the frames. But it neither replaces the image, and more importantly, the purpose of the image.
If faith is correct in what it believes it has the virtue of being correct. If I ask what the thirteenth letter of the alphabet is and you respond correctly, I have no way of knowing whether you knew the answer or got lucky guessing. Teaching that 2 divided by 2 is equal to one doesn’t assume that the student understands the process that gives a truthful answer simply because the teacher receives the correct answer once.
But I know what the 13th letter of the alphabet is. And, I know why 2 divided by 2 equals 1. With knowledge it could be asserted comes perfect faith. But if the converse were true, Las Vegas would be an empty desert.
And I’ve always been a big fan of the apodictic argument. I’ve written about it here
and here.
Again, I’m no enemy of religion. It has been our religions that have given us so much meaning, so much poetry, so many ways of looking at the world around us. Life without religion, or religious views and beliefs would be pretty hard to describe. In fact I believe the biggest gift religions have endowed upon mankind is simply our ability to converse, to view the unknowable and provide more than mute substantiation. It is the power of religion that moves conversation between the unknown and the knowable.
Far from being a bug, it’s a feature.
[...] Skarbutts points out in Faith Against Faith, there is no belief system that lacks [...]