Faith and Reason... Can't We All Just Get Along?
go4tli
scratching at the surface of a very deep matter, and my brain tends to
shoot endorphins into my bloodstream whenever that happens.
Acknowledging that we serve a God Who is beyond reason, yet has given
us reason as a tool, is an interesting matter to explore...
particularly when it comes to learning how to share our faith.
Sharing our faith is, to a large extent, sharing our story.
Unfortunately for empiricists (like I tend to be), anecdotes are not
data, and it's a mistake to think that they are. What, then, is the
function of reason? Does it have a role in the life and faith of a
Christian?
I think so, simply because reason and faith are not opposites. Nor
are they completely separate spheres. Reason can inform faith, and
vice versa.
The problem lately with a lot of American Evangelical discourse --
and, I'm convinced, a big reason why we're not invited to speak at the
cultural table as often as we once were (part of the "different world"
we talked about) -- is that we fail to distinguish one from the
other. We simply fail to call things what they are.
Take an example that came up during our discussion: Josh McDowell's
arguments. People often use what he's written and call it
"logic" (even if not directly, then they'll reference one of the
countless "apologetics" works that parrot him).
The problem is, of course, that they're not(1). And people who know
what logic is and how it works are turned off to Christianity when
adherents insist that they are.
Consider an analogy to weight lifting. Some people work hard at that,
knowing the weaknesses of their own muscles and working to circumvent
them to perfect their pursuit. Imagine that someone strutted into the
center of a gym, stood in the middle of all the equipment, took a
feather from his pocket, hoisted it over his head, and insisted that
he was training like the regulars who had been attending and working
for years. People would reasonably conclude that the feather-lifter
had no idea what weight lifting really was, and that he had no
knowledge of the difficulties inherent in doing it carefully or well.
Logical thought is not "common sense". It's not intuitive or obvious
or "linear"(2). It takes discipline and careful inspection of one's
own weaknesses, and training to work around them(3). As with weight
lifting, one never achieves perfection, but one gets better with
practice; and as with weight lifting, trainees ignore the advice of
seasoned professionals at our peril.
I think we Evangelicals would get a lot further if we were honest
about what things are(4). When our understanding comes from faith, we
should admit that it is based on faith, and how our faith grew to
encompass what we claim. When our understanding comes from reason,
admit that it comes from reason, and explain that reasoning well
enough to be open to potential flaws. We need to show that our
relationship with Christ is a pilgrimage that requires the interplay
of both gifts that God has given us poor disciples as we stumble along
and try to figure it out.
This basic honesty would, I think, also help with other problems
facing American Evangelical Christianity. It would do a lot to help
us remove the stigma of hypocrisy from our ranks. And it would
prevent us from seeming like the clueless, irrelevant political force
that many left-wing intellectuals seem to think we are.
In that latter respect, I think we've become victim to precisely the
same kind of unfortunate association that, say, Republicans have with
Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. There's no question that these pundits
are caustic, say things that thinking and considerate people wish they
wouldn't, and make statements that are demonstrably untrue and/or
completely invented. People outside of Republicanism or
conservativism accuse the right of being composed of inconsiderate and
deceptive idiots because of the words these self-appointed spokesmen
utter. Of course, many on the right claim that their political
opinions aren't that extreme, and that most Republicans or most
conservatives aren't like that. What they seem to fail to realize,
corporately, is that these complaints ring hollow when they have
allowed -- nay, *enjoyed* -- his rise to prominence and his continued
presence in the spotlight.
It pains me to point out that American Evangelical Christianity has
suffered the same fate. We never appear to denounce our self-
appointed spokespeople when they lie or distort things. As with the
saner Republicans above, we seem to fail to realize that the timid and
only very occasional objection of "Well, we wouldn't put it quite that
way..." is a criticism of *style* and never of *substance*, and that
it does nothing but besmirch our integrity (and, by extension, that of
our Lord) when we fail to utterly denounce falsehood as something that
is *not part of us*. If someone lies, announces that he speaks for
American Evangelicals, *and his words go unopposed*, why should anyone
believe that we have anything useful to say? Why should they believe
that our message has the power to reach into their lives?
----------
(1) Take, for example, his lord/liar/lunatic "trichotomy", which
attempts to demonstrate the divinity of Christ. The argument is
simple enough: Christ claimed to be God. Either He was or He wasn't.
If he wasn't, He either knew His claim was false or He didn't. If He
knew it, then He was a liar -- but His teachings and moral standing
were too strict and too pure to admit lying, so that can't be it. If
He didn't know it, then He was a lunatic -- but His words show that He
was far too clever and lucid to be a lunatic. The only thing left is
that He must have been Who He claimed to be.
Of course, the flaw in this "logic" is that it *claims* to be based on
a reasonable elimination of all other possibilities, when in fact it
doesn't even come close. Without breaking too much of a mental sweat,
I can think of other possibilities. Perhaps His words were
misreported. Or perhaps the person recording them was mistaken about
their meaning and filled in blanks He shouldn't have. Or perhaps He
never said them, and they were added after the fact by adherents.
Some even insist that the person of Jesus Christ never existed.
Do I believe any of these counterarguments? No, of course not, and I
have my reasons. But it's interesting to note that, for example,
Muslim apologists use a very similar "trichotomy" to demonstrate that
Mohammed was a genuine prophet of God. For someone who thinks that
their belief that Jesus is Lord has logical validity based on this
argument, finding out that some unbelievers use the same "logic" to
prop up *their* faith can be devastating.
And those who understand what logic is and how it works would be
justified in laughing people who call this argument "logic" out of the
room.
I should also mention, in the vein of parroting arguments, that this
"trichotomy" didn't start with McDowell. C. S. Lewis used it, too,
though he was a smidge more careful and thorough than McDowell was.
----------
(2) Frankly, I blame a lot of the assumption that it is on the way
science tends to be taught to schoolchildren here in the US. Almost
invariably, they're taught that there is a "scientific method" that
scientists follow. In real life, it's not as tidy and neat as a
single method; a simple historical overview of how science has come to
understand what it does is sufficient to demonstrate that it generates
knowledge in a far less "linear" and predictable way than any single
method might suggest.
----------
(3) This analogy falls apart somewhat because hoisting a feather is
still a trivial amount of weight lifting, whereas parroting an
argument isn't even trivially logic. But I trust you can still see
the similarities where they apply.
For example, in terms of working around our own weaknesses, we all
have a tendency to gather information that agrees with our notions
about things and discard information that disagrees. Awareness of
this all-too-common "bug" in human thinking (known as "Confirmation
Bias") can allow us to develop strategies to mitigate it and its
effects. This is why, for example, peer review exists in science.
There is a tacit acknowledgement that we all have biases, perceived
and not, and this slow, imperfect process serves to reduce the biases
of particular persons or groups as different time periods, cultures,
and experiments weigh in. It's not perfect -- far from it! -- but
honest scientists understand its utility, and have admitted, time and
again, that every capable mind should be out there trying to disprove
what they claim as fast as they can; it's the only way scientific
thought moves forward.
"Experimental confirmation of a prediction is merely a measurement.
An experiment disproving a prediction is a discovery."
-- Enrico Fermi
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the
most discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
-- Isaac Asimov
"Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several
thousand things that won't work."
-- Thomas Edison
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
-- Thomas H. Huxley
"First you guess. Don't laugh, this is the most important step. Then
you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to
experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In
that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how
beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If
it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
-- Richard Feynman
"We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and
no learning."
-- Richard Feynman
"We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible,
because only in that way can we find progress."
-- Richard Feynman
Yes, I've read a lot of Feynman; I like his fire. In that vein, I'd
really like those people who think science is done by spineless,
acquiescent, milquetoast doormats jealously trying to find
confirmation for their particular pet theory to actually attend a
science symposium and listen to a presentation or two. You'll be
lucky if you get to leave with your spleen still inside your body.
One of the most amazing and humbling (yet surprisingly regular) things
in these symposia is when a scientist comes to the conclusion that she
has been wrong and has to change her outlook based on the evidence(5)
-- a mental repentance of a sort. I have to believe that similar
instances of spiritual repentance lend weight and power to our
attempts to share our faith.
----------
(4) Come to think of it, this parallels my wish that creationists (and
their philosophical brethren, Intelligent Design proponents) would be
honest about their ideas. I'd have no logical problem with their
stance if they were to hold their ideas as articles of faith. But the
insistence that their claims are consistent with the facts and
evidence at our disposal is either mistaken or dishonest; they rather
obviously and conclusively aren't.
----------
(5) A short, easy-to-read history on how this happened to cosmologists
in the early 20th century -- who, as they processed evidence of the
Universe's expansion, were forced to reject their favored notions that
the Universe could be eternal and without beginning -- can be found in
"God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow, which has this quote that
I love:
"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise
the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has
lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad
dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
is greated by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." (p.107 in the 1992 edition)
(Lest you come to the wrong conclusion, I don't think he means to call
reason utterly pointless in solving deep cosmic mysteries; this is
more obvious in the context of the book.)
Tom Olson
smoothly when I came to believe that I didn't have to know how to
prove God's existence like solving some kind of geometry problem. My
Biblical scholarship is lacking, but it seems like the emphasis is on
faith, hope, and love a whole lot more than logic and reason.
Regarding bringing Christians to the cultural table, NPR has a show
called Being (used to be Speaking of Faith). Christians turn up there
all the time, though frankly I don't think Evangelicals are very
common compared with other varieties. One of their episodes, which
was basically an extended interview with Thich Nhat Hanh, pretty much
completely changed my life.
go4tli
> I take the same approach. My spiritual life started to run much more
> smoothly when I came to believe that I didn't have to know how to
> prove God's existence like solving some kind of geometry problem. My
> Biblical scholarship is lacking, but it seems like the emphasis is on
> faith, hope, and love a whole lot more than logic and reason.
I'd generally agree. There are clearly places that faith, hope, and
love can be applied where reason can only scrabble for a foothold.
That said, though, there are *also* clearly places where even
Scripture entreats us to use the logical faculties God gave us (e.g.,
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22; 1 John 4:1; Isaiah 1:18; and countless places
where the reader is encouraged to verify the truth of the writings by
looking to some external evidence that remains at the time of the
writing). God is clearly capable of making things known to us in a
way that defies reason, but I believe that He is honored and pleased
when we undertake the initiative to try to know Him better using the
limited resources at our disposal. God is interested in working on
our *character*, and I'm convinced that that character includes being
someone who will use anything he can get his hands on to try to get to
know God more intimately, whether God happens to be supernaturally
moving at the moment or not. (Frankly, I'd call that integral to the
definition of what it means to be "faithful", "hopeful", and "loving"
-- seeking to know the object of your faith, hope, and love, even when
the object of these things is not explicitly prodding you to do so.)
So it concerns me greatly that a trend that has been rather strong in
American Evangelicalism for decades now is the *denial* of reason.
There is an active disparagement of people trying to puzzle stuff out,
or of any insight gained through the exercise of puzzling stuff out.
It's almost as if a great many of them expect *all* understanding to
be supernaturally delivered; they'd rather wait around and see if God
gives them something without their having to expend any effort than
see if God is willing to grant them more of Himself as reward for
expending mental effort. (If you honestly believe that God is the
ultimate good, what greater reward could there be?) I tend to beat
this drum not because I think reason more important than God's
supernatural revelation, but because I see a great many of my brothers
and sisters closing themselves off completely to the desire to get to
know God this way, and apparently considering themselves "more
spiritual" in doing so.
Yes, there is much that we embrace that surpasses human
understanding. But there is also much to be gained from searching
whatever we can. It's bewildering to me that so many seem so content
in willingly denying themselves the chance to come to know God better.
> Regarding bringing Christians to the cultural table, NPR has a show
> called Being (used to be Speaking of Faith). Christians turn up there
> all the time, though frankly I don't think Evangelicals are very
> common compared with other varieties. One of their episodes, which
> was basically an extended interview with Thich Nhat Hanh, pretty much
> completely changed my life.
There are a few things that come to mind that might make for
interesting discussion in this direction:
* Americans generally know Evangelicalism much better than other
forms of Christianity by exposure alone. If I perceive correctly that
the *point* of this show is to showcase alternative points of view on
certain topics, then showing views many are already familiar with
might be seen as a waste of programming time.
* That said, I think many Evangelicals could do well with exposure to
other forms of Christianity, what they believe that's different, and
why. You may or may not agree, but at least you might get a better
sense of your own assumptions and preconceptions (which goes back to
the "Confirmation Bias" thing mentioned earlier). A lot of my beliefs
have changed in subtle and gross ways after studying Eastern Orthodoxy
in some depth, as well as how Christianity in the first few centuries
AD differs from Christianity as contemporary Americans practice it.
* By "being invited to the cultural table", I wasn't specifically
referring to panel discussions featured on media outlets. I meant the
feeling that a lot of Christians seem to voice -- that when it comes
to making choices in our social institutions, people seem less and
less willing to consider what the Evangelical Christians have to say.
Part of this perception is, I would argue, an overblown persecution
complex, but even so, some of it is legitimate; of that, I consider a
large amount to be due to American Evangelical Christianity generally
deciding that it has no need of those pointy-headed intellectuals (and
intellectuals generally returning the favor).
* What do you remember of this interview? Would you mind sharing
some of those insights with us?
Tom Olson
> some of those insights with us?
The whole thing is online; if I tried to give a good summary I'd end
up doing a poor job of telling you the same things he could, and he's
much wiser than I am:
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/thichnhathanh/
Here's some background on the man himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Nhat_Hanh
-T