On philosophy, reason and faith
Consider Tertullian’s rhetorical question, ‘What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?’. In other words, what does faith (Jerusalem of Jesus) has to do with reason (the Athens of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle). In contemporary western thought, belief in God is considered irrational and infantile, primarily for two reasons: lack of evidence and evidence contrary to God’s nature (usually stated as ‘What sort of God would allow...’). The roots of this objection can be traced to the Enlightenment period. During the Enlightenment, all beliefs were demanded to be subjected to the searching of criticism and reason. If a belief could not survive the scrutiny of reason, it was dismissed as irrational. As Kant put it, “Dare to use your reason.” This objection is not offered as a disproof of the existence of God, indeed one cannot disprove God, for God is Truth. It however argues that, even if God were to exist, it would not be reasonable to believe in God. According to such objections the rational belief in God hinges on the success of theistic arguments. This view is held by the majority of modern western thinkers. So you may ask: Why does this view require the support of evidence or argument?
This is because the evidentialist objection is rooted in a theory of knowledge known as Classical Foundationalism. Classical Foundationalists take a pyramid, or a house, as metaphors for their conception of knowledge or rationality. A secure house or pyramid must have secure foundations sufficient to carry the weight of the subsequent floors properly attached to that foundation. They argue that a belief in God is neither self-evident or evident to the senses. Therefore, such a belief is irrational. Very few philosophical positions, and this is a major understatement, enjoy the kind of evidential support that Classical Foundationalism demands of belief in God, yet most of these demands are treated as rational. This raises another question: Why is belief in God held to a higher evidential standard than other philosophical beliefs?
In a view called reformed epistemology, some modern thinkers have argued that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. There is a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If we were required to prove everything there would be an infinite regress of provings. Belief in God is more like the belief in a person than the belief in a scientific hypothesis. If belief in God is more like belief in other persons than belief in atoms, then the trust that is appropriate to persons will be appropriate to God. Beliefs are therefore innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent, as the classical foundationalists believe. This is an example of the Augustinian view of faith and reason: fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding.
The one place where term philosophy appears in the New Testament (Colossians 2:8), the best advice is given for all humanity, at all times: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men’s fancies, hinders their faith. Unfortunately, western civilization is dominated by, and paying dearly for the domination of, the vain and deceitful kind.
This is because the evidentialist objection is rooted in a theory of knowledge known as Classical Foundationalism. Classical Foundationalists take a pyramid, or a house, as metaphors for their conception of knowledge or rationality. A secure house or pyramid must have secure foundations sufficient to carry the weight of the subsequent floors properly attached to that foundation. They argue that a belief in God is neither self-evident or evident to the senses. Therefore, such a belief is irrational. Very few philosophical positions, and this is a major understatement, enjoy the kind of evidential support that Classical Foundationalism demands of belief in God, yet most of these demands are treated as rational. This raises another question: Why is belief in God held to a higher evidential standard than other philosophical beliefs?
In a view called reformed epistemology, some modern thinkers have argued that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. There is a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If we were required to prove everything there would be an infinite regress of provings. Belief in God is more like the belief in a person than the belief in a scientific hypothesis. If belief in God is more like belief in other persons than belief in atoms, then the trust that is appropriate to persons will be appropriate to God. Beliefs are therefore innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent, as the classical foundationalists believe. This is an example of the Augustinian view of faith and reason: fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding.
The one place where term philosophy appears in the New Testament (Colossians 2:8), the best advice is given for all humanity, at all times: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men’s fancies, hinders their faith. Unfortunately, western civilization is dominated by, and paying dearly for the domination of, the vain and deceitful kind.
