Faith and Reason...and Other Mindless Trivia: Part II

Throngulators! Mount up!

Previously, on Are You There, God? It's Me, Atheist...

A lie was confessed, a repentance made. Forgiveness was sought, humility demonstrated. Yet another threat of porn revealed the perverse mind of the common blogger. A cliff-hanger of epic proportions left us all on the edge of our collective seats, wondering if it was possible to reconcile faith and reason. More hackneyed jokes than you can shake a cliche pie at. One...Creepy-assed...Monkey.

The nightmare continues.


The Authors: Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli

The Book: Handbook of Christian Apologetics

The Chapter: 2 - Faith and Reason

Last go 'round, we examined the explication, the fleshing out, if you will, of how Kreeft and Tacelli (KT from here on) define and understand faith, and we looked at some of the problems with their formulation thereof. Now, we turn our attention to their unpacking of reason.

As they did with their treatment of faith, KT distinguish the object of reason (all the things that reason can know, that can be understood, discovered, and proved by human reason alone, without faith in divine revelation) from the act of reason (subjective, personal acts of mind by which we understand, discover, or prove any truth; includes simple apprehension, judgment, and reasoning). They note that reason is relative to truth, a way of knowing truth. As KT see it, no human has ever existed without some form of faith, since we all know most of what we know by faith, by what others tell us. So, one of their central points here is that both inside and outside of religion, faith and reason are both roads to truth (32-33).

What's interesting about this so far is the fact that, despite pointing out that it's fallacious to equivocate on the use of the term faith, KT do exactly what they advise against. Earlier in the chapter, they explained that by faith they meant a whole suite of related notions, such as emotional faith (assurance, trust, confidence in a person), intellectual faith (belief stronger than mere emotional faith), volitional faith (commitment to obey God's will), and a kind of core faith that begins in the heart. For KT, faith is something that we live everyday and must be willing to die for, something that anchors us and is unchanging. Yet here, it seems that faith has been reduced to mere emotional faith, that which we trust on the authority of others. There are significant differences (which KT blithely gloss over) between trusting another person reporting on some natural phenomenon (whether it be trivial gossip, higher mathematics and logic, or the most recent scientific findings) and having the kind of faith they describe in what others report about claims from the supernatural realm.

For one thing, we know the natural world exists as well as we can possibly know anything, from our own experiences, the most well-supported philosophical arguments, and the very best and most consistent findings of every branch of science. Also, with many of the naturalistic reports and claims, we can often check the source(s) of the information to determine (to the best of our ability) whether or not they deserve our trust and confidence. Thirdly, if it turns out that something sets off our skeptical alarm bells or raises our hackles of skepticism, we can shrug off the claim and move on, bringing ourselves one step closer to what is actually true.

Not so with faith claims about the supernatural, especially those associated with theism. We don't know for a fact that the supernatural realm exists, replete with gods, ghosts, and demons. So we have no prior reason to trust claims that make appeals to such a spooky, magical dimension. Sacred texts are often written anonymously, so it's difficult to know whether or not the author is trust-worthy. And even in cases where we know the primary author, redactions might be made by others that contradict or massage the original message. And of course, one of the many problems with religious faith (though it is often viewed as one of its many virtues) is its rigidity, its failure to change in the light of new (sometimes contradictory) evidence. Another problem is that, unfortunately, many people are indeed willing to die for their faith. Some even go so far as to kill others in the process.

As if this weren't bad enough, KT include a chart that purports to show the relationship between reason and faith. Now I'm not techno-bloggy-savvy enough to recreate the chart (gimme a break people; I just learned how to cut and paste friggin pictures into my posts), but I will outline the information they provide in said chart.

Pretend that what follows is arranged in an adroitly crafted chart. By reason alone (not part of revelation), we can understand what a star is made of; we can discover that Pluto exists; and we can prove the Pythagorean theorem. By reason and faith in divine revelation, we can understand why the universe is so well ordered; we can discover the historical existence of Jesus; and we can prove that the soul does not die. By faith in divine revelation alone (not by reason), we can discover God's plan to save us; we can discover how much God loves us; and we can prove that God is a trinity (33).

This is jaw-droppingly bad. It seems to me that the only aspect that KT get right here is what can be discovered by reason alone. One error they make is in simply assuming and asserting that faith in divine revelation is a proper methodology for uncovering the truth about any phenomenon. Why should we assume such a thing? What "reason" do we have to trust faith at all? Secondly, it seems to me that whatever turns out to be true, faith is a deeply flawed approach to acquiring, establishing, and demonstrating that truth. For anything we have good reason to believe as true, we simply don't need faith. Where we only have faith (whether in divine revelation or on naturalistic grounds, such as mere trust, confidence, and assurance) without any corroborating evidence or arguments, we're in a rather poor position to proclaim that we've uncovered the truth. Even if it turns out that we're right, this would be haphazard, a lucky guess, or an accident at best. I submit that we ought to rely on solid evidence, sound reason, and good arguments to educe and demonstrate the truth of some phenomenon; and in the absence of these conditions, perhaps we should remain silent. Otherwise, we're in danger of constructing arguments on the basis of ignorance.

Also, as I pointed out in the previous post, once again, KT assume the existence of God, which is the very entity under investigation.

Another point that deserves my terrifyingly wrathful fury has to do with their formulation of the logical relation between the objects of faith and reason. Are reason and faith just friends? Frenemies? Soul-mates with benefits? Funk-buddies who come running for a booty-call? Do faith and reason love each other? Or is it something more serious? Did faith give reason an STD?  KT note that there are five possible answers to the question of the relationship of faith and reason:

1. Rationalism: "All that we know by faith can also be understood, or discovered, or proved by reason, but not vice versa. Faith is a subclass or subdepartment of reason." Represented as "All A's are B's, but not all B's are A's."
2. Fideism: "The only certain knowledge we can have is by faith." Represented as "All B's are A's, but not all A's are B's."
3. Identity of Faith and Reason: "All that is known by faith is known by reason too, and all that is known by reason is known by faith. Faith and reason are interchangeable." Represented as "All A's are B's and all B's are A's." Or, A = B.
4. Dualism: "Nothing that is known by faith is known by reason, and nothing that is known by reason is known by faith. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive." Represented as "No A's are B's and no B's are A's."
5. Partial Overlapping: "Some but not all that is known by faith is also known by reason, and some but not all that is known by reason is also known by faith. Faith and reason partly overlap." Represented as "Some but not all A's are B's and some but not all B's are A's" (33-38).

KT want to defend the fifth position, but I'm afraid there is something problematic at the core of this formulation. Each category trades on the assumption that faith is an actual means of apprehending truth, of understanding, discovering, or proving something to be true. While KT have frequently asserted that faith is such an approach to truth, this contention is yet to be demonstrated. And I have serious doubts that it is possible to demonstrate such a thing. I'm not at all convinced that "that which is known by faith" is an actual  data-containing set. It may very well be the case that there is no set of objects that is in fact "known" by faith at all.

I'll close with something that actually troubles me. I may return to it from time to time. What follows stems from KT's treatment of fideism, where they (paraphrasing Pascal) contend that "to trust reason in the first place must itself be an act of faith, and not rationally provable. For if trust in reason were proved by reason, we would be committing the logical fallacy of 'begging the question,' assuming what we are supposed to prove." KT find the argument to be compelling, but not as a strong support for practical fideism. Rather, they say "the ultimate theoretical justification for reason cannot be reason itself" (36).

To be quite honest, this vexes me deeply. I am deeply vexed. However, I'd like to offer a brief, unsatisfactory reply.

First of all, honestly dudes? Reason effin rules. So, you know, STFU.

Secondly, what sets reason apart from other approaches to understanding truth is that reason provides a means and methodology to verify and falsify conclusions drawn from its application. If reason is actually on such shoddy theoretical grounds, it wouldn't be as successful as it obviously is. As things stand, arguments can be evaluated to determine whether or not they hold up to rational, reasonable scrutiny. To attempt to impugn reason itself is to call for a game without rules, to allow for nonsense to pass as wisdom, to open every thinking person to attack without any recourse or regulation.

Or, as George H. Smith much more eloquently puts it in Atheism: The Case Against God, "Reason is the faculty by which man acquires knowledge; rational demonstration is the process by which man verifies his knowledge claims. A belief based on reason is a belief that has been examined for evidence, internal coherence, and consistency with previously established knowledge. There can be no propositions beyond the 'limits of reason.' To advocate that a belief be accepted without reason is to advocate that a belief be accepted without thought and without verification." Smith continues, quoting Richard Robinson thuslywise: "On all choices between adopting a proposition and adopting its contradictory, either reason is competent or nothing is...The only alternatives to thinking with reason are thinking unreasonably and not thinking" (110).

Secondly, it seems as if KT (via Pascal) have again equivocated on the use of the term faith. As I pointed out above, mere trust, confidence, and assurance are in direct contradistinction to all the other facets that go along with faith as KT define it. If by some miracle of Zeus reason were shown to be ill-equipped to handle questions of truth, we would (quite "reasonably") discard it in favor of whatever process worked better. This isn't faith in reason, but rather the recognition that we have no other choice than to use it if we're concerned about truth and acquiring knowledge. Compare KT's whopper of faith in the supernatural to the meager trust in the axiomatic necessity and empirically verified solidity that is the application of reason. It's no contest.

Thirdly, suppose it is wrong to use reason to adjudicate claims, and suppose it is correct to use faith in such matters. How can we verify the conclusions reached by faith? How can we falsify such conclusions? Suppose two different faiths arrive at contradictory conclusions regarding the same phenomenon. How do we determine which is the correct conclusion? It seems to me that at every turn, you'd have to introduce reason to the discussion, thereby nullifying any so-called advantage claimed by advocates of faith.

Ultimately, KT's and Pascal's critique of reason sounds like a desperate tu quoque accusation. They're effectively saying that reason-based thinkers have "faith" in certain things also, so it's okay for them to have faith in a supernatural deity. When laid out so clearly, the obfuscation and equivocation become more apparent.

In the next and final post on this chapter, we'll take a look at why KT think faith and reason can never contradict each other and some potential objections that they consider. So far, faith ain't doing too good.

It was a clear white page,
A blank blog bloom
Revvy P beat up some beats,
Try not to assume
That God created Eve,
Who put us in this funk
Just blogging on my blog,
Reason to tha bone

If you hit the west side AVL, NC
On a mission to convert
Revvy Pudgy-Me
Just knock on my door, ain't no need to speak
Beef between reason and theology

Conclusions, Premises,
We bringises
Rationality
Dork-Thug: Where Reason is Life, and Life is Reason

If you know like I know, you don't wanna miss what's next
It's the Dork-Thug Era
Freaked out with a Logical twist.

-Pudge Dogg, Throngulators, KT, Blayze, Smitty, RiRo, Peace! Over, out-n-under.