Truth and Tolerance - Integrating Faith and Reason
Created | Updated Sep 25, 2006
Sub-title: September 12th 2006 – by way of background
On that day a certain public figure went back to a university to give a speech. He was invited to make an address to “representatives of science” on the issue of his views on “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections”. He reminisced early on in the speech, causing polite laughter, about a critical comment from a colleague who said… “there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God.” He went on to say… “That even in the face of such skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question”. No doubt many of the representatives of science gathered in the lecture theatre settled down to listen, perhaps with skepticism themselves, to hear him out. It would be a “bookish” academic discourse they thought, something that would hardly be a “big affair”.
Maybe Pope Benedict XVI had similar thoughts about its expected reception as he gathered his notes and moved into the main part of his Regensburg University address (1). By all accounts it took him by surprise the reaction to some opening remarks he made in his next paragraph, that he hoped would merely serve as a starting point for the thesis that violence and religion where not compatible and that faith must be integrated with a respect for rationality and vice versa.
The purpose of this Entry is not to discuss the furor caused by the Pope’s remarks about the comment made by a certain “Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam”, but to look at the main theme of the speech that was on the topic of the integration of Faith and Reason, which seems to be unfortunately lost in the media chaos that ensued.
Sub-title: Where are we going?
Why is this important? Well consider this example … You are driving with friends in the back seat. As you approach a crossroads, you ask for advice as to where to go. Friend A says turn left, friend B says right. And there seems to be no compromise possible from the argument that ensues. Maybe one is right and the other is wrong, you don’t know. You have three choices.
1. CHOOSE to go with one of the friends advice, or
2. IGNORE them and carry on regardless through the junction going straight, only making turns when they both agree, or
3. STOP the car and ask for someone that really knows the way (maybe bringing the friends along or not!).
You see when it comes to “Faith and/or Reason” for many it appears that there are JUST two competing & opposite ways at looking at meaning and truth in the world. (2)
It's important to understand these so as to be able to make our own personal judgment about what others say is meaningful and/or true. Clearly what is true for some is not for others. How we construct our picture of the world, truths and meaning is what we call our "worldview".
We can see "Truths" revealed to us through religious traditions or personal experience, and through this way of thinking make sense of the world and build a "Faith" based worldview. (“Turn Left”). Alternatively we can build a worldview that is based on rigorous rational and logical analysis and theory/model building backed up by scientific experiments that are predictable in their outcomes. Let us call this a "Reason" based worldview here. (“Turn Right”). For some this is entirely adequate, meaning to say their Reason based or Faith based worldview they consider complete needing no radical change in their perspective, all that they consider meaningful is best viewed from these perspectives they believe. We might for the sake of definition call these “Hard” positions. (And you might think it best to drive the “car” always taking one of your “Friends” advice at the exclusion of the other – this is the choice of many, and for them it may indeed be the best choice).
However many people though are uncomfortable with being asked to choose between these worldviews. They see value in both, maybe applying one approach for one part of their lives. and the alternative for other aspects. The choice for these folks is Reason AND Faith (albeit in separate areas of their lives). A significant step forward in this regard is the work on "Critical Rationalism” (3). In this system it is proposed we can find our way by reasoning with BOTH Rational and Faith based modes. The integration of Reason with Faith based approaches is possible. All you need to do is apply Reason based thinking for those problems that it is best for and Faith based for those that are applicable to that “domain”. Though sometimes that’s easier to say than do.
This is not acceptable for some, as this "compartmentalization" is an uneasy compromise and they would prefer to have a single integrated worldview where all parts of their lives can be addressed consistently. This is because it not always easy to know which mode to apply in a given situation (i.e., if the “Car Friends” disagree, which Friend should you listen to when you have need to make a choice?). The choice for these folks is to look for an Integration of Faith and Reason (where it is hoped your Friends contradictions simply cease).
There is a growing interest right now in building this synthesis of Reason and Faith based thinking into an integrated worldview. But you might be surprised that it’s far from a new, or a post-modern (4) invention (post-modernists also hope to achieve this goal but in its extreme formulation they often regard all truths are equal, unfortunately you can’t drive your car both right and left at the same time!). Notwithstanding this “contribution” the goal of integration is something we should look at.
Sub-title: Reasoning about Faith
There are many traditional faiths of course and most of them claim Reason as a crucial part of their traditions. A particular common absorption or "syncretic” adoption was of the Greek Philosophical Reason based traditions of Plato and Aristotle, the so called the "Hellenization" of many Faith based worldviews, e.g.,
• Judaism: Moses Ben Maimon introduced the Philosophical Reasoning of Aristotle.
• Christianity: Augustine introduced Plato and Aquinas introduced Aristotle.
• Islam: Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Idn Sina and Ibn Rushd introduced Plato and Aristotle.
• Etc. To study more about these integrations just Google the (Tradition, e.g., Christianity) with (Introducer, e.g., Augustine and the (Introduced, e.g., Plato) and you should get a lot of hits!
This syncretic process continued through the ages, for example the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (5) who examined aspects of Reason and Faith in a “transcendent” manner (being “beyond and above” the constraints of universe we live in). And Soren Kierkegaard, who as a founding father of the "Existential" movement that we shall discuss later (14), took Reason into Faith based traditions further still, to the point where a clear definition of the kinds and types of “leaps of faith” where given a systematic outline.
The central idea for Theologians being confronted with the truth found by rationality and natural philosophy was that they could not be at odds with truth by Faith, contradiction being seen as a sign of error in one aspect or the other. The contribution of these Theologians was to start the process of ensuring the reconciliation of the truths of Reason and Faith and ensure any “metaphysical/physical” contradiction was resolved adequately (a kind of conflict resolution process). Many (though not all) Faith based traditions have by now worked hard enough on this over the centuries to now claim that their Theological basis is internally consistent with rationality. This is hotly disputed of course, and you can find the debates on many a blog.
Still the “conflict resolution” process continues as new truths are discovered about our reality. In some cases as we discover new or revise old scientific truths we find that they are consistent with a certain traditions faith based truths, that is often taken to be a positive “confirmation” to the traditions, and everyone is happy. However when things do not there tends to be a backlash from certain faith based traditions to challenge the new science. However challenges and contradictions need not be considered negative, they can be seen as promptings for the rationally arrived at truths to be “hardened” up. It only becomes a problem if overtime the faith based traditions fail to accept the new rationally “proven” truth once it has got to a position where denial is unreasonable (for example Evolutionary theory was initially considered a challenge to many faiths but now it is accepted by many. Though not all – and as such the “hardening” process continues. To see aspects of this take a look at the many Entries in h2g2 on this in the Evolution vs Creation area (6).
This process of conflict resolution has been a hard one, particularly for certain individuals in less liberal periods of history. And there are many shameful examples where it has broken down to the point where you might think it impossible for there to be tolerance of each “sides” Truth and the resolution between them. But the fact that mankind has acted badly in the past is hardly a revelation. We must seek to do better now and going forward at very least.
Sub-title: Having Faith in Reason
What does it mean for something to be “Proven”? When do we know we have “Truth” and is it Objective (true for all) or Subjective (true for me)? (7) On the face of it this sounds easy, but it’s not. The Philosopher Heidegger came up with the “Ultimate Question” (8) in which we are confronted with a point of view that leads us to question all systems of truth and belief. To get a sense of this without going into over much detail (check out the references if you feel the need!), consider… sometimes we can say some Truth is Objective in the sense that it is mostly true for us all, most of the time. For example "boiling an egg for 5 minutes will give you a hard boiled egg". There maybe some exceptions, but it’s mostly a good rule. However other truths, particularly "human truths" relating to our personal beliefs of;
• Beauty (e.g., “is this piece of abstract art beautiful?”),
• Justice (e.g., “is this person lying?”) and
• Goodness (e.g.,“is this person being kind?”).
Are more clearly subjective and harder to pin down. In other words whatever YOU think the answer to these questions are you cannot assume OTHERS will agree, they may argue with your Logic (“why is something this abstract related to your feelings?”), or how you did you get the Information its based on (“tell me what is the evidence for the lie?”), or even the Language definition of the words you use (“what does it mean to be kind?”).
Once we start to analyze deeply the problems we find intractable “knots” in this so called subject – object problem. In the past 100 years academics have to come to terms with certain limits of objectivity in principle. Their studies have concluded that our human language is subjective in that any personal language statement cannot be made objective (9). There are similar problems that occur in physical measurement where the Quantum Theory of Physics describing fundamental uncertainty in measurement as being an unavoidable aspect of nature. We simply cannot pin down measurements with complete certainty we are told (10). Even our Mathematical foundations of logic are found to be questionable for their symbolic completeness (11). This results in what is called the “Explanatory Gap”, where our very thought process itself may be insolvable to our rational mind (12).
Some argue this point. Not everyone believes these limits are unassailable roadblocks, for example see Objectivism (13). In this controversial worldview the Object reality of the person at expense of others is taken as an article of Faith for the individual. Alternatively we have the worldview of Existentialism (14). In this system we are told that there is no absolute meaning or objective truth, and we have to face this reality and make the best of it. For some this is acceptable, and simply the way it is. They are conclusions that have (particularly in the case of Existentialism) a lot of support (though less so for Objectivism!). Notwithstanding this many nevertheless find the conclusions sufficiently disturbing for them to reject these systems as representing “truth and belief” at least as they see it. Many people want something that tolerates more meaning in their lives.
Sub-title: Truth and Tolerance
One resolution to get to Objective Truth in a world wrestling with the Subjective problems as discussed above is to accept that we must seek it from outside of the subjective systems we all exist in. That is to say we simply decide on some “axioms” (things we assert as True, Absolutely and Objectively) and see if the resulting statement of belief that are supported by the axiom are sufficiently free of contradictions with things we see in our best models of life, the universe and everything. If they do we can say these axioms are “very good”. (15)
For example in that branch of mathematics we call “Set Theory” mathematicians have built various different axiomatic principles that allow us to avoid some otherwise embarrassing contradictions that where found in the early days of so called naïve set theory. From these axioms we can build the foundations or principals of mathematics. Most folks don’t appreciate how hard it is to “prove” that 1+1=2 is TRUE and 1+1=3 is FALSE. (16)
Doing this gets us started on a slippery slope though. Once you start to build webs of axiomatic truth statements (that are like little “atoms” of a personal Faith-based system) to fill in this Explanatory Gap that we talked about earlier we get to a rather complex situation very quickly. Apart from understanding all the axioms we need for problems we have yet to uncover, we also have an issue about agreeing what common axiomatic set we must have to be able to communicate effectively. If this is a bad state of affairs in something as “simple” as arithmetic then in issues relating to human truths regarding standards for personal morality and ethics we really have a problem on our hands!
One solution that the Faith based folks can offer to the Reason based ones is a worldview that at least in the area of let us say ethics and morals alone is “pre-built”, something they say has stood the test of time and has evolved to be as close as we can to be Objectively True. Using the faith based system of Pope Benedict XVI he was bold enough to say (17) …
1. Our personal freedom consists not in gradually getting rid of moral law and norms of behavior but in perfecting them to universal objective truths, as best we are able to understand them.
2. We must bid farewell to the dream of absolute autonomy of Reason and its self-sufficiency. Human reason needs meaning to be "imported" from the Faith based traditions of mankind.
3. Because Reason by itself is limited it is a myth that a liberated world order of the future is possible where everything is good and just for all men. Such ideologies that promise otherwise ultimately fail to liberate us, rather they disappoint us and enslave us.
Does this make sense? Well in the context of the 20th century experience of Fascism, Marxism and Global Capitalism some might agree. Though it’s a contentious point that you will need to consider for yourself at the end of the day.
It is important to note that these statements come from one faith based system. Other faith based systems might come up with different perspectives. And its also for true that not all faith based perspectives need to be centered on the “Belief in God” proposition. Legitimate Faith based propositions are possible that are Humanist based for example. But the common aspect is they are based on Faith in some form of Objective Truth principles. By building effective Inter-Faith dialog we can come to form better understanding of these systems and look for what common principles we can all agree on to build a world free of some of its less attractive aspects. As long as you have a common grounding for this dialog…
To get to Objective Truth we need to be Tolerant to be able to see the benefits of the Reason based and Faith based approaches.
• Faith can support Reason by giving it meaning.
• Reason can support Faith by giving it an internally consistent rationality.
• We must seek resolution of conflicts in Faith and Reason, giving Reason priority where rational discourse is meaningful, and vice versa.
• And violence in support of a Faith based tradition is irrational.
Broadly speaking this was the thesis of the Pope’s Regensburg Address. He ended by saying …
“Here I am reminded of something Socrates said …. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby.”
The point has been around a long time, and it’s a relevant today as it was in Socrates time c 470 B.C.E.
________________________________________
1 You can find the text of the speech (in several languages) at : http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
2 Take a look at this Entry A731440 for more on this "Tension".
3 Sir Karl Raimund Popper initially and subsequently Professor Ian Barbour developed this system. More information on this an be found in h2g2 on Critical Rationalism A455924 it’s well worth a visit
4 For more on Post-modernism see here A99119
5 For Kant introducing the concept of "Transcendent" Reason, see A1029340
6 This gives a mainstream Christian perspective, be sure to look at the others in this area A699573
7 See A151525 for a perspective on “Truth” and A378254 for “Belief”.
8 This Question is: Why is there anything rather than nothing? This he referred to as The Question of the Meaning of Being. See A656787 for more detail.
9 Wittgenstein’s study of language in the mid 20th century is a landmark of analytical philosophy, see A1024156
10 Quantum Theory of Physics was an amazing achievement in the early to mid 20th century breaking the old classical understanding of reality in a profound way, see A781823
11 Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is one of Mathematical Logic great paradox’s. See A781823 for a short and simple description
12 This is a non edited h2g2 entry: Explanatory Gap A926949
13 Objectivism is described in A455311
14 Existentialism is described in A2961100
15 To get further insight on this approach have a look here : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/
16 See A337303 Principia Mathematica was written by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, leading to Propositional Calculus, that Gödel proved was incomplete (see footnote 9 above). Nevertheless you get the picture I hope of how hard it is to describe the truth.
17 See “Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
On that day a certain public figure went back to a university to give a speech. He was invited to make an address to “representatives of science” on the issue of his views on “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections”. He reminisced early on in the speech, causing polite laughter, about a critical comment from a colleague who said… “there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God.” He went on to say… “That even in the face of such skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question”. No doubt many of the representatives of science gathered in the lecture theatre settled down to listen, perhaps with skepticism themselves, to hear him out. It would be a “bookish” academic discourse they thought, something that would hardly be a “big affair”.
Maybe Pope Benedict XVI had similar thoughts about its expected reception as he gathered his notes and moved into the main part of his Regensburg University address (1). By all accounts it took him by surprise the reaction to some opening remarks he made in his next paragraph, that he hoped would merely serve as a starting point for the thesis that violence and religion where not compatible and that faith must be integrated with a respect for rationality and vice versa.
The purpose of this Entry is not to discuss the furor caused by the Pope’s remarks about the comment made by a certain “Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam”, but to look at the main theme of the speech that was on the topic of the integration of Faith and Reason, which seems to be unfortunately lost in the media chaos that ensued.
Sub-title: Where are we going?
Why is this important? Well consider this example … You are driving with friends in the back seat. As you approach a crossroads, you ask for advice as to where to go. Friend A says turn left, friend B says right. And there seems to be no compromise possible from the argument that ensues. Maybe one is right and the other is wrong, you don’t know. You have three choices.
1. CHOOSE to go with one of the friends advice, or
2. IGNORE them and carry on regardless through the junction going straight, only making turns when they both agree, or
3. STOP the car and ask for someone that really knows the way (maybe bringing the friends along or not!).
You see when it comes to “Faith and/or Reason” for many it appears that there are JUST two competing & opposite ways at looking at meaning and truth in the world. (2)
It's important to understand these so as to be able to make our own personal judgment about what others say is meaningful and/or true. Clearly what is true for some is not for others. How we construct our picture of the world, truths and meaning is what we call our "worldview".
We can see "Truths" revealed to us through religious traditions or personal experience, and through this way of thinking make sense of the world and build a "Faith" based worldview. (“Turn Left”). Alternatively we can build a worldview that is based on rigorous rational and logical analysis and theory/model building backed up by scientific experiments that are predictable in their outcomes. Let us call this a "Reason" based worldview here. (“Turn Right”). For some this is entirely adequate, meaning to say their Reason based or Faith based worldview they consider complete needing no radical change in their perspective, all that they consider meaningful is best viewed from these perspectives they believe. We might for the sake of definition call these “Hard” positions. (And you might think it best to drive the “car” always taking one of your “Friends” advice at the exclusion of the other – this is the choice of many, and for them it may indeed be the best choice).
However many people though are uncomfortable with being asked to choose between these worldviews. They see value in both, maybe applying one approach for one part of their lives. and the alternative for other aspects. The choice for these folks is Reason AND Faith (albeit in separate areas of their lives). A significant step forward in this regard is the work on "Critical Rationalism” (3). In this system it is proposed we can find our way by reasoning with BOTH Rational and Faith based modes. The integration of Reason with Faith based approaches is possible. All you need to do is apply Reason based thinking for those problems that it is best for and Faith based for those that are applicable to that “domain”. Though sometimes that’s easier to say than do.
This is not acceptable for some, as this "compartmentalization" is an uneasy compromise and they would prefer to have a single integrated worldview where all parts of their lives can be addressed consistently. This is because it not always easy to know which mode to apply in a given situation (i.e., if the “Car Friends” disagree, which Friend should you listen to when you have need to make a choice?). The choice for these folks is to look for an Integration of Faith and Reason (where it is hoped your Friends contradictions simply cease).
There is a growing interest right now in building this synthesis of Reason and Faith based thinking into an integrated worldview. But you might be surprised that it’s far from a new, or a post-modern (4) invention (post-modernists also hope to achieve this goal but in its extreme formulation they often regard all truths are equal, unfortunately you can’t drive your car both right and left at the same time!). Notwithstanding this “contribution” the goal of integration is something we should look at.
Sub-title: Reasoning about Faith
There are many traditional faiths of course and most of them claim Reason as a crucial part of their traditions. A particular common absorption or "syncretic” adoption was of the Greek Philosophical Reason based traditions of Plato and Aristotle, the so called the "Hellenization" of many Faith based worldviews, e.g.,
• Judaism: Moses Ben Maimon introduced the Philosophical Reasoning of Aristotle.
• Christianity: Augustine introduced Plato and Aquinas introduced Aristotle.
• Islam: Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Idn Sina and Ibn Rushd introduced Plato and Aristotle.
• Etc. To study more about these integrations just Google the (Tradition, e.g., Christianity) with (Introducer, e.g., Augustine and the (Introduced, e.g., Plato) and you should get a lot of hits!
This syncretic process continued through the ages, for example the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (5) who examined aspects of Reason and Faith in a “transcendent” manner (being “beyond and above” the constraints of universe we live in). And Soren Kierkegaard, who as a founding father of the "Existential" movement that we shall discuss later (14), took Reason into Faith based traditions further still, to the point where a clear definition of the kinds and types of “leaps of faith” where given a systematic outline.
The central idea for Theologians being confronted with the truth found by rationality and natural philosophy was that they could not be at odds with truth by Faith, contradiction being seen as a sign of error in one aspect or the other. The contribution of these Theologians was to start the process of ensuring the reconciliation of the truths of Reason and Faith and ensure any “metaphysical/physical” contradiction was resolved adequately (a kind of conflict resolution process). Many (though not all) Faith based traditions have by now worked hard enough on this over the centuries to now claim that their Theological basis is internally consistent with rationality. This is hotly disputed of course, and you can find the debates on many a blog.
Still the “conflict resolution” process continues as new truths are discovered about our reality. In some cases as we discover new or revise old scientific truths we find that they are consistent with a certain traditions faith based truths, that is often taken to be a positive “confirmation” to the traditions, and everyone is happy. However when things do not there tends to be a backlash from certain faith based traditions to challenge the new science. However challenges and contradictions need not be considered negative, they can be seen as promptings for the rationally arrived at truths to be “hardened” up. It only becomes a problem if overtime the faith based traditions fail to accept the new rationally “proven” truth once it has got to a position where denial is unreasonable (for example Evolutionary theory was initially considered a challenge to many faiths but now it is accepted by many. Though not all – and as such the “hardening” process continues. To see aspects of this take a look at the many Entries in h2g2 on this in the Evolution vs Creation area (6).
This process of conflict resolution has been a hard one, particularly for certain individuals in less liberal periods of history. And there are many shameful examples where it has broken down to the point where you might think it impossible for there to be tolerance of each “sides” Truth and the resolution between them. But the fact that mankind has acted badly in the past is hardly a revelation. We must seek to do better now and going forward at very least.
Sub-title: Having Faith in Reason
What does it mean for something to be “Proven”? When do we know we have “Truth” and is it Objective (true for all) or Subjective (true for me)? (7) On the face of it this sounds easy, but it’s not. The Philosopher Heidegger came up with the “Ultimate Question” (8) in which we are confronted with a point of view that leads us to question all systems of truth and belief. To get a sense of this without going into over much detail (check out the references if you feel the need!), consider… sometimes we can say some Truth is Objective in the sense that it is mostly true for us all, most of the time. For example "boiling an egg for 5 minutes will give you a hard boiled egg". There maybe some exceptions, but it’s mostly a good rule. However other truths, particularly "human truths" relating to our personal beliefs of;
• Beauty (e.g., “is this piece of abstract art beautiful?”),
• Justice (e.g., “is this person lying?”) and
• Goodness (e.g.,“is this person being kind?”).
Are more clearly subjective and harder to pin down. In other words whatever YOU think the answer to these questions are you cannot assume OTHERS will agree, they may argue with your Logic (“why is something this abstract related to your feelings?”), or how you did you get the Information its based on (“tell me what is the evidence for the lie?”), or even the Language definition of the words you use (“what does it mean to be kind?”).
Once we start to analyze deeply the problems we find intractable “knots” in this so called subject – object problem. In the past 100 years academics have to come to terms with certain limits of objectivity in principle. Their studies have concluded that our human language is subjective in that any personal language statement cannot be made objective (9). There are similar problems that occur in physical measurement where the Quantum Theory of Physics describing fundamental uncertainty in measurement as being an unavoidable aspect of nature. We simply cannot pin down measurements with complete certainty we are told (10). Even our Mathematical foundations of logic are found to be questionable for their symbolic completeness (11). This results in what is called the “Explanatory Gap”, where our very thought process itself may be insolvable to our rational mind (12).
Some argue this point. Not everyone believes these limits are unassailable roadblocks, for example see Objectivism (13). In this controversial worldview the Object reality of the person at expense of others is taken as an article of Faith for the individual. Alternatively we have the worldview of Existentialism (14). In this system we are told that there is no absolute meaning or objective truth, and we have to face this reality and make the best of it. For some this is acceptable, and simply the way it is. They are conclusions that have (particularly in the case of Existentialism) a lot of support (though less so for Objectivism!). Notwithstanding this many nevertheless find the conclusions sufficiently disturbing for them to reject these systems as representing “truth and belief” at least as they see it. Many people want something that tolerates more meaning in their lives.
Sub-title: Truth and Tolerance
One resolution to get to Objective Truth in a world wrestling with the Subjective problems as discussed above is to accept that we must seek it from outside of the subjective systems we all exist in. That is to say we simply decide on some “axioms” (things we assert as True, Absolutely and Objectively) and see if the resulting statement of belief that are supported by the axiom are sufficiently free of contradictions with things we see in our best models of life, the universe and everything. If they do we can say these axioms are “very good”. (15)
For example in that branch of mathematics we call “Set Theory” mathematicians have built various different axiomatic principles that allow us to avoid some otherwise embarrassing contradictions that where found in the early days of so called naïve set theory. From these axioms we can build the foundations or principals of mathematics. Most folks don’t appreciate how hard it is to “prove” that 1+1=2 is TRUE and 1+1=3 is FALSE. (16)
Doing this gets us started on a slippery slope though. Once you start to build webs of axiomatic truth statements (that are like little “atoms” of a personal Faith-based system) to fill in this Explanatory Gap that we talked about earlier we get to a rather complex situation very quickly. Apart from understanding all the axioms we need for problems we have yet to uncover, we also have an issue about agreeing what common axiomatic set we must have to be able to communicate effectively. If this is a bad state of affairs in something as “simple” as arithmetic then in issues relating to human truths regarding standards for personal morality and ethics we really have a problem on our hands!
One solution that the Faith based folks can offer to the Reason based ones is a worldview that at least in the area of let us say ethics and morals alone is “pre-built”, something they say has stood the test of time and has evolved to be as close as we can to be Objectively True. Using the faith based system of Pope Benedict XVI he was bold enough to say (17) …
1. Our personal freedom consists not in gradually getting rid of moral law and norms of behavior but in perfecting them to universal objective truths, as best we are able to understand them.
2. We must bid farewell to the dream of absolute autonomy of Reason and its self-sufficiency. Human reason needs meaning to be "imported" from the Faith based traditions of mankind.
3. Because Reason by itself is limited it is a myth that a liberated world order of the future is possible where everything is good and just for all men. Such ideologies that promise otherwise ultimately fail to liberate us, rather they disappoint us and enslave us.
Does this make sense? Well in the context of the 20th century experience of Fascism, Marxism and Global Capitalism some might agree. Though it’s a contentious point that you will need to consider for yourself at the end of the day.
It is important to note that these statements come from one faith based system. Other faith based systems might come up with different perspectives. And its also for true that not all faith based perspectives need to be centered on the “Belief in God” proposition. Legitimate Faith based propositions are possible that are Humanist based for example. But the common aspect is they are based on Faith in some form of Objective Truth principles. By building effective Inter-Faith dialog we can come to form better understanding of these systems and look for what common principles we can all agree on to build a world free of some of its less attractive aspects. As long as you have a common grounding for this dialog…
To get to Objective Truth we need to be Tolerant to be able to see the benefits of the Reason based and Faith based approaches.
• Faith can support Reason by giving it meaning.
• Reason can support Faith by giving it an internally consistent rationality.
• We must seek resolution of conflicts in Faith and Reason, giving Reason priority where rational discourse is meaningful, and vice versa.
• And violence in support of a Faith based tradition is irrational.
Broadly speaking this was the thesis of the Pope’s Regensburg Address. He ended by saying …
“Here I am reminded of something Socrates said …. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby.”
The point has been around a long time, and it’s a relevant today as it was in Socrates time c 470 B.C.E.
________________________________________
1 You can find the text of the speech (in several languages) at : http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
2 Take a look at this Entry A731440 for more on this "Tension".
3 Sir Karl Raimund Popper initially and subsequently Professor Ian Barbour developed this system. More information on this an be found in h2g2 on Critical Rationalism A455924 it’s well worth a visit
4 For more on Post-modernism see here A99119
5 For Kant introducing the concept of "Transcendent" Reason, see A1029340
6 This gives a mainstream Christian perspective, be sure to look at the others in this area A699573
7 See A151525 for a perspective on “Truth” and A378254 for “Belief”.
8 This Question is: Why is there anything rather than nothing? This he referred to as The Question of the Meaning of Being. See A656787 for more detail.
9 Wittgenstein’s study of language in the mid 20th century is a landmark of analytical philosophy, see A1024156
10 Quantum Theory of Physics was an amazing achievement in the early to mid 20th century breaking the old classical understanding of reality in a profound way, see A781823
11 Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is one of Mathematical Logic great paradox’s. See A781823 for a short and simple description
12 This is a non edited h2g2 entry: Explanatory Gap A926949
13 Objectivism is described in A455311
14 Existentialism is described in A2961100
15 To get further insight on this approach have a look here : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/
16 See A337303 Principia Mathematica was written by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, leading to Propositional Calculus, that Gödel proved was incomplete (see footnote 9 above). Nevertheless you get the picture I hope of how hard it is to describe the truth.
17 See “Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
