Can I have both Faith and Reason?

[OldChurchGuy]

In the thread entitled An Honest Question, Criada said:



This was my reply.

Yes, that's the core of my problem, Criada.

I can't see any merit in faith. I read what so many others have said about it in the past and find myself nodding in agreement.

"Faith is the effort to believe what your common sense tells you is not true." Elbert Hubbard

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." H. L. Mencken

"Faith is believing what you know ain’t so." Mark Twain

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley

"[Children] are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them a prey to quacks of every kind in later life, and makes it very difficult for them to accept the methods of thought which are successful in science." J. B. S. Haldane

"Because religious training means credulity training, churches should not be surprised to find that so many of their congregations accept astrology as readily as theology, or a channeled Atlantean priest as readily as a biblical prophet." Barbara G. Walker

"The most pernicious of absurdities is that weak, blind, stupid faith is better than the constant practice of every human virtue." Walter Savage Landor

"I do not support religion because it demands that we give up our most important human asset, the ability to question. It demands that we simply believe. Isn't that true of any dictator, of any totalitarian society? Insofar as social development is concerned, nothing is of greater importance than the human function of questioning. . . . Questioning led to the development of civilization." Vladimir Pozner

Statements like the above make complete sense to me. I trust reason in every other area of my life. To allow faith in through the door and kick reason out of the window when it comes to the most important area of all seems crazy.

* * *

I thought this core problem was worth its own thread, so here it is.

Is it possible, given the above, to have Faith in the concept of God without throwing away the faculty of reason?

Any thoughts?

John

Great question. The simple answer is "yes". The reality is "yes but". It is that "but" that makes this such a fascinating journey of discovery (for me anyway).

Along with C.S. Lewis I would like to suggest a book by Hecht, entitled "Doubt: a history". I just started it and it seeems to be a great read. It was published in 2003 so you should be able to find it in your local public library.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Rafael]

Faith is not blind, IMO. No more than the trust a person has for the unseen paycheck they expect to appear at the end of the week when they work hard all all that time to receive it.
Everything we see in our reality is made of the unseen and science now tells us of it being made in ten dimensions - and just when I thought I could not wrap my mind around mass being a warp of time in space! So, why is it so hard to believe in the creative intelligent design we see all things made of pointing to an intelligent Creator at least powerful enough to reveal Himself in whatever manner He chooses? He chose the simple and profound that lies in trust, faith, which is only part of what love, the greater, is.
With so much of what mankinds reality being made up of unseen, why place so much trust in only what is seen?
God shows His hand in creation. One example: Even the human genome converts people into having faith in God like Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/pla...7/04/03/foreman.francis.collins.intv.cnn&wm=9

"As Bill Gates has noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." Stephen C. Meyer, "What is Intelligent Design?"


Heb 11:1 ¶ Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.


1 Corinthians 13:12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
13 Three things will last forever––faith, hope, and love––and the greatest of these is love.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Assuming 'cannot get your head around' = 'cannot understand the reasoning' it seems to me that quote 2 contradicts the 2nd sentence in quote 1.

Its only contradictory when taken by itself this way , in the explanation i explained that first- one gets enough of a reason to trust someone , then when something comes up that they dont understand , they still have enough reasoned faith to draw upon about the faith.

You can have reasonable trust (faith) in someone without understanding 100 percent of everything about them , what they think and what they do. You dont just not trust anyone. We often draw upon what we do know to justify continued faith when something comes up we cannot understand. That is what i meant about the things you dont understand.

I believe that God gives us enough reason to know we can trust Him so that when the things we dont understand come up - we can still trust what we do know enough to know there is a reasoned answer for what we dont. Its drawing on the experience we already have by what we do already know. Like trust in all relationships that takes time.

 

[ebia]

That second sentence seems quite dogmatic, ebia.

I think rationalism has something to say about every aspect of our experience - including the experience of God. Why do you feel so strongly that it doesn't?

John

Because it's basic assumptions include such ideas as naturalism which (quite properly in their own context) assume we aren't talking about the 'supernatural'.

We can't objectively study God with the tools of science because (if he exists) he is outside (and the creator of) the very mechanisms we would need to use.

It's not a question of dogmatism, it's a question of the inherent limitations of post-enlightenment method.

What is dogmatic is to assert that the only form of truth worth talking about is objectively verifiable facts.

 

[John54]

Thanks to all for the responses and the reading suggestions. I appreciate it.

We can't objectively study God with the tools of science because (if he exists) he is outside (and the creator of) the very mechanisms we would need to use.

We can study what believers claim to be God's effects, ebia - and the knowledge gained can lead to conclusions.

Nobody has ever seen a black hole, not directly. But black holes have observable effects on the universe around them, just as fundamental particles like leptons (also never seen directly) do - and it's through their effects that we can learn about them.

In a similar way, the presence of God, if he exists, will be detected and detectable in the real world. After all, believers say they have plenty of evidence indicating how God is present in their lives - how he answers prayers, guides them, intervenes etc. If he has no real-world effects, if he's not detectable in some way, then there's no difference between a universe with God and a universe without him.

Rationalism in the form of science is perfectly able to study those Godly interventions and effects (if they exist) and through that study we could gain indirect evidence as to the nature of the supernatural God.

One of my problems is the absence of evidence for such phenomena.

A related problem is the well-documented way science has gradually nibbled away at the foundations of God's assumed interventions. At one time everything was kept in orbit around the earth by God's will - but then along came science and gave us gravity and the Newtonian universe...

I look about me, and as I see the God of the Gaps retreating into smaller and smaller gaps with each new advance in science, it becomes harder and harder to believe.

John

 

[ebia]

Thanks to all for the responses and the reading suggestions. I appreciate it.



We can study what believers claim to be God's effects, ebia - and the knowledge gained can lead to conclusions.

Nobody has ever seen a black hole, not directly. But black holes have observable effects on the universe around them, just as fundamental particles like leptons (also never seen directly) do - and it's through their effects that we can learn about them.

Yes, but this only works because blackholes and their effects are still consistantly bound by the laws of physics. God isn't; he is outside of, (and the creator of) those very rules we use for our inferences. You can observe what happens when a blackhole isn't around, you can't do that either with God.

In a similar way, the presence of God, if he exists, will be detected and detectable in the real world. After all, believers say they have plenty of evidence indicating how God is present in their lives - how he answers prayers, guides them, intervenes etc. If he has no real-world effects, if he's not detectable in some way, then there's no difference between a universe with God and a universe without him.

You could, for example, do some statistics and find out something about Christians - let say you find out that they live longer. All that tells you is something about Christians; you have no way of demonstrating whether it is God answering prayers or just Christians living more healthy lifestyles. And this is true one way or another of just about all the claims - God is other, but also within the whole universe making it tick. God's action within the world is so bound into the world itself that you cannot tell the difference scientifically, just as you can't determine the truth of the biggest claim of all - that God created it all. Without an example of what the state would be without God, you have no idea what to compare it against.

Rationalism in the form of science is perfectly able to study those Godly interventions and effects (if they exist) and through that study we could gain indirect evidence as to the nature of the supernatural God.

Well, no you wouldn't because one of the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method is that there is no supernatural stuff going on. Science relies on that assumption - it can never allow the possibility that "God did it".

One of my problems is the absence of evidence for such phenomena.

The Christian answer is that the phenomena are all around you - creation and life itself is outworking of God. The problem isn't that the phenomena aren't there, it's that science (quite properly for what it is trying to do) has to assume that they aren't phenomena of God but entirely 'naturalistic' effects and processes.

A related problem is the well-documented way science has gradually nibbled away at the foundations of God's assumed interventions. At one time everything was kept in orbit around the earth by God's will - but then along came science and gave us gravity and the Newtonian universe...

What science has done in that isn't addressing a proper understanding of the Christian God. The Christian God isn't interventionist in this way - stepping into particular bits that would otherwise go wrong. The entire universe, it's laws and operations, are full of the Word and Spirit of God. God isn't in the gaps we can't otherwise explain - he is in the bits we can explain.

I look about me, and as I see the God of the Gaps retreating into smaller and smaller gaps with each new advance in science, it becomes harder and harder to believe.

Because the God you aren't believing in isn't the Christian God. As the Bishop of Durham says, "I don't believe in that God either".

 

[dvd_holc]

I hope to make this brief...all too often people will express the saying, "So and so has no common sense." Also, in my work place I heard it said, "If only people used common sense in the work area we would not have so many problems." Now, it was not the person who was thought to have no common sense actually did not actually have any common sense but that person was using different critical thinking to reach the desired goals.

The statement "I have faith" can be mask for inability to express thoughts and feelings or it can also be excuse for laziness...but either way (and there more ways that I did not list)...faith is not something confind to religious testimonies or discussions.

For instance, we all know the sun has come and gone for a long time. We can logically conclude that the sun will raise tomorrow, but once we have taken our understanding of the solar system operation past observations to theory and ultimatelly to law we are establishing believe structures (faith). All observations move toward understanding; understanding toward knowledge; knowledge toward faith. The learning process is not complete without faith.

I stand in a unified faith and logical reason. My reasoning and the things I put faith into is different than yours...but that does not mean I fail to have logical reasoning and faith...nor does it mean that you stand by logically reasoning without faith.

 

[John54]

Without an example of what the state would be without God, you have no idea what to compare it against.

Do you believe God answers prayers, ebia?

If we lived in such a universe, it would be an easy matter to test that theory using standard scientific methods. The results would indicate the reality or non-reality of god.

Well, no you wouldn't because one of the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method is that there is no supernatural stuff going on. Science relies on that assumption - it can never allow the possibility that "God did it".

That's simply not true. God can be treated as a theory, just like other theories - and the theory can be tested. It used to be thought that the universe was awash in something called The Ether - a strange, invisible substance that gave light waves a medium through which to travel.

Experiments related to the speed of light demonstrated that the ether did not exist.

If any kind of 'spirit' - God, ghost, phantom - interacts with the real-world of matter and energy, that interaction can be detected. If it can be detected, it can be measured. If it can be measured, the results can be used to test the validity of the theory.

John

 

[ContentInHim]

But, John, the spirit that you would be measuring might not be GOD - God has not defined for us his own composition. And as he is outside of time and space, we can't really do so either.

This is getting pretty interesting!

 

[LightHearted]

Do you believe God answers prayers, ebia?

If we lived in such a universe, it would be an easy matter to test that theory using standard scientific methods. The results would indicate the reality or non-reality of god.

Billions of people's firsthand testimonies asserting that God does answer prayer isn't enough? That's pretty solid proof in my book.

 

[Criada]

I do nt find faith and reason to be mutually exclusive - my apologies if I gave that impression!
I simply do not believe that you can come at faith through reason alone. True faith needs a supernatural intervention - and that is where reason will struggle. Because God, as a Spirit, is not detectable or measurable in any meaningful scientific way.
Whilst you can 'experiment' to some extent with the effect that God has on people's lives, it is all too easy to explain away any results..
I have read serious studies which, having 'proved' according to their own criteria that God has made a difference, immediately go on to say that the difference is due to the faith of the subject, and that faith will have this effect whether or not the object of the faith exists! So again, no proof of God's existance.

However, I consider myself a reasoning person, and whilst my faith is a gift from God, it in no way contradicts my reason. If anything, it is strengthened by it.
Because my God is so much more than the 'God of the gaps' - each new discovery serves to strengthen my faith in His purpose and design.

I am praying for you, John - I admire your honesty in your search for truth.

 

[John54]

Billions

of people's firsthand testimonies asserting that God does answer prayer isn't enough? That's pretty solid proof in my book.

I'm afraid that's just the Argument from Popularity, LH.

Just because an idea or belief is held by large numbers of people, that doesn't make it true. Millions of people believe in astrology. Millions are Marxists. Millions used to believe that slavery was perfectly OK.

The belief that prayers are answered can be explained psychologically. We know that people invent myths, hear voices, hallucinate and talk with imaginary friends - and we understand many of the processes in the brain that cause these experiences.

The only way to show that prayer actually works is to conduct properly cotrolled experiments. Personal testimony simply isn't reliable - no matter how many testimonies you gather.

John

 

[Criada]

I'm afraid that's just the Argument from Popularity, LH.

Just because an idea or belief is held by large numbers of people, that doesn't make it true. Millions of people believe in astrology. Millions are Marxists. Millions used to believe that slavery was perfectly OK.

The belief that prayers are answered can be explained psychologically. We know that people invent myths, hear voices, hallucinate and talk with imaginary friends - and we understand many of the processes in the brain that cause these experiences.

The only way to show that prayer actually works is to conduct properly cotrolled experiments. Personal testimony simply isn't reliable - no matter how many testimonies you gather.

John

What kind of controlled circumstances did you have in mind?

Many healings have been attested by doctors - even by non-Christian doctors who are at a loss to explain them!

 

[John54]

Because my God is so much more than the 'God of the gaps' - each new discovery serves to strengthen my faith in His purpose and design.

Science has demonstrated how life evolves from simple forms to more complex ones - but we don't yet understand how the first living matter arose from non-living matter.

If that problem is eventually solved, would that really strengthen your faith in God, Criada? Even though it would remove one of the main arguments currently used by theists trying to explain why they believe?

John

 

[John54]

What kind of controlled circumstances did you have in mind?

The kind of experiment conducted here, Criada:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/10_october/15/does_prayer_work.shtml

John

 

[Criada]

Science has demonstrated how life evolves from simple forms to more complex ones - but we don't yet understand how the first living matter arose from non-living matter.

If that problem is eventually solved, would that really strengthen your faith in God, Criada? Even though it would remove one of the main arguments currently used by theists trying to explain why they believe?

John

It would certainly not diminish my faith, since I believe that the important thing here is the who, not the how. Discovering how God did something does not in any way detract from the fact that it was Him who did it!

The kind of experiment conducted here, Criada:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/10_october/15/does_prayer_work.shtml

John

Hmmm... interesting, but rather inconclusive, I agree!
But

Matthew 4:7
Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "

Which I am sure you will see as a cop-out!
And perhaps in some ways, it is.
But He is God, not a performing seal! And would it not seem cruel if He healed some in this experiment and not others! It tells us nothing of the faith of the patients themselves, which seems to me an extremely important factor! So - perhaps not a well controlled experiment?!

 

[John54]

It would certainly not diminish my faith, since I believe that the important thing here is the who, not the how. Discovering how God did something does not in any way detract from the fact that it was Him who did it!

But the point is, the necessity for God is gradually being undermined by science. If we ever reach a point at which everything we currently attribute to a supernatural God can be explained by natural processes - God will be an unnecessary theory.

It tells us nothing of the faith of the patients themselves, which seems to me an extremely important factor! So - perhaps not a well controlled experiment?!

On the contrary, what was being tested in that experiment was the power of prayers from people other than the patients. The beliefs of the patients themselves was irrelevant.

John

 

[Secundulus]

But the point is, the necessity for God is gradually being undermined by science. If we ever reach a point at which everything we currently attribute to a supernatural God can be explained by natural processes - God will be an unnecessary theory.

Natural processes have been being explained for several hundred years and belief in God has not been diminished.

The only possible thing that would seriously change people's beliefs in this matter is if someone were to come back from the dead and teach something different.

 

[Criada]

But the point is, the necessity for God is gradually being undermined by science. If we ever reach a point at which everything we currently attribute to a supernatural God can be explained by natural processes - God will be an unnecessary theory.

Being unnecessary does not make anything cease to exist!

Not that I think this would prove God in any way unnecessary. I may study the way a pot is made, understand all the processes involved but that does not negate the existence of the potter!
(I know - not a perfect analogy!)

On the contrary, what was being tested in that experiment was the power of prayers from people other than the patients. The beliefs of the patients themselves was irrelevant.

John

In a controlled experiment, no variable is irrelevant! Everything that is not being tested must be rigorously controlled if your results are to be in any way valid. Trust me - I have marked thousands of experimental write-ups!

 

[John54]

In a controlled experiment, no variable is irrelevant! Everything that is not being tested must be rigorously controlled if your results are to be in any way valid. Trust me - I have marked thousands of experimental write-ups!

It was a well-designed experiment, Criada.

A total of 748 patients with coronary artery disease who were to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (a type of stenting procedure) or elective cardiac catheterization with possible percutaneous coronary intervention were enrolled at one of nine study sites between May 1999 and Dec. 2002. Patients were randomized equally to each of the two noetic therapies or standard care, creating four treatment groups. One group (189 patients) received both off-site intercessory prayer and MIT therapy; a second group (182 patients) received off-site intercessory prayer only; a third group (185 patients) received MIT therapy only, while the fourth group (192 patients) received neither the intercessory prayer nor the MIT therapy. The interventional heart procedures were all conducted according to each institution's standard practice, and the study called for a six-month period of follow-up.
The prayer portion of the randomization was double-blinded, meaning that patients and their care team did not know which patients were receiving intercessory prayer. Per Institutional Review Board policies governing clinical research, all patients were aware that they might be prayed for by people they did not know, from a variety of faiths. The MIT portion of the study was not blinded, so patients and their care team knew if they were randomized to those groups. The prayer groups for the study were located throughout the world and included Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and multiple Christianity-based denominations. The researchers noted 89 percent of the patients in this study also knew of someone praying for them outside of the study protocol altogether.

Full report is here:

http://www.dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=9136

John