PART 2: A SYNTHESIS OF FAITH AND REASON

WHAT DO WE KNOW?¹

Reasoning about Faith

This is part 2 of a 4 part series on Truth and Tolerance – Integrating Faith and Reason. We have in first part looked at the so called dialectic of faith and reason. Here we will look to see if we can make a synthesis of these worldviews.

Let's start by further clarifying the definition of faith according to James Fowler²:

'Faith may be characterized as an integral, centering process underlying the formation of beliefs, values and meanings that (1) gives coherence and direction to persons' lives, (2) links them in shared trusts and loyalties with others, (3) grounds their personal stances and communal loyalties in the sense of relatedness to a larger frame of reference, and (4) enables them to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying upon that which has the quality of ultimacy in their lives.'³

From the definition faith is seen as a reasoning process leading to an understanding of core principles. Several traditional mainstream faiths claim that such reasoning is a crucial part of their traditions philosophical basis known as metaphysics.

A problem with this definition is that it explicitly does not say anything about the belief-in-God proposition, although it is implied in that a person's sense of a deity can be the 'larger frame of reference', that gives a 'quality of ultimacy in their life'. There is a need to proceed with care, though, as different faith-based traditions have varied perspectives on the issue of the deity's characteristics, if indeed there is a role for a deity at all.

Syncretic Adoption

Faith is influenced by the belief systems/traditions/cultures a person comes in contact with. In this respect a common absorption or syncretic⁴ adoption was of the Greek philosophical reason-based traditions of Plato and Aristotle.⁵

This syncretic process continued into the enlightenment age with the philosophies of;

1. Immanuel Kant. Kant introduced the concept of Transcendent reason, being beyond and above the constraints of universe we live in.⁶
2. Baruch Spinoza gave a counterpoint for faith and reason integration within an Immanent reasoning, where a deity does not rule over the universe by providence but rather that it is itself part of the deterministic system containing the whole of nature.⁷
3. Soren Kierkegaard who, as a founding father of the Existential movement, took
   reason into faith-based traditions further still to the point where a clear definition of the kinds and types of leaps of faith are given a systematic outline.⁸

As scientists developed compelling models for reality and the philosophers of faith-based traditions compared them with their worldviews, they found that in some cases the truths contradicted each other. For those faith-based traditions that considered reason-based truths to be valuable they would then have to confront the prospect that there was an error in one aspect or the other. This led to a reconciliation process to ensure any contradiction was resolved adequately, a kind of conflict resolution process with the intention of building a harmonious worldview of reason and faith.

Have we arrived at a full resolution of the conflict? Well there are claims that the process is well underway for Faith and Reason⁹ being synthesised into a holistic worldview, but it needs more work. Some think that it will never be successful. It is certainly a hotly disputed claim, as proven by the heated debates on many a blog.

Conflict Resolution

Thus the process continues as new truths are constantly being discovered our revised about our reality. Not all reason and faith based insights are in conflict. When science discovers new truths, or revises old ones, and finds that they map well to existing faith-based beliefs - then there is a happy concurrence. For example recent cosmological insight as the initial condition of the universe, the so called big bang theory this maps well to creation myths of some faith-based traditions.

However when these new truths are found to be in conflict with established positions there can be a backlash from certain faith-based traditions to challenge the new science. It can become a problem if over time the faith-based traditions persist in denial of the new rationally accepted truth. Eg, Evolutionary theory was initially considered a challenge for many faiths but now it is accepted by most. To see aspects of this take a look at the entries in h2g2 in this area. Evolution vs Creationism gives a mainstream Christian perspective, be sure to look at the others in this area to get a balanced view.

This reconciliation process 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 side's truth and the resolution between them.

The difference between Orthodoxy and Heresy (ie, right thinking and wrong thinking) often depended on the political role of religion in society. It has sometimes been an positive agent for change, though often it has had negative reactions. But the fact that mankind has acted badly in the past is hardly a new revelation. We must surely seek to do better going forward.

In western society these days there seems to be a pessimism in the traditional faith-based approaches being able to give answers that are current and meaningful. Rapid changes in demographics, science, education, globalisation and liberal democracy over the past few generations have placed severe stress on the traditions to evolve their message (if not the content then at least in its application, interpretation and delivery, ie, its rendering).

If faith-based traditions are to have a future in western society there is an apparent need for a re-think and revival. If we believe that faith can be reasoned in this manner, then metaphysics and theology have a role in the future. It's maybe too early to declare 'God is dead'.¹⁰

Having Faith in Reason

Let's again start by further clarifying the definition of rationality and reasoning¹¹. They are the key methods used to treat the data gathered through empiricism (which stands for the experiences and the observations which our senses are used to collect). The use of Logic and the Scientific Method are also bound up with this worldview, whereby falsifiable models (models that can be tested to see if they are logically true or false) of 'life, the universe and everything' fit the empirical data of tests. If these models are found to be accurate in their predictive capability they are considered reasoned and rational theories.

Having said this, what does it mean for something to be proven? When do we know we have truth? And is belief in it objective or subjective?¹² On the face of it this sounds easy, but it’s not. The philosopher Heidegger came up with the Ultimate Question. This Question is: 'Why is there anything rather than nothing?'. This he referred to as The Question of the Meaning of Being, in which we are confronted with a point of view that leads us to question all systems of truth and belief. We'll be coming back to this later in this series.

The Subject-Object Problem

To get a sense of this without going into too 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 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 empirical rule. And by and large this kind of truth is not something that faith-based traditions have much to say about!

Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are known as the Platonic triad of Western Civilization, these idealistic forms of Plato where crucial in history of philosophical thought. And as it so happens they are also independently held important in Indian Philosophy as the eternal trinity of Satyam, Shivam and Sundaram. The notion that these three are objective aspects of reality is now being critically reconsidered in some forms of the Post-Modernism movement. Where we may hear 'That's your truth, I have another.' To Plato this would have sounded as absurd as saying, 'That's your sun. I have my own.' Notwithstanding this we often do find them subjective in practical application in our lives.

For example they can get quite subjective in areas dealing with personal human truths, mostly what faith-based traditions are concerned with, eg;

• Truth (eg, 'is this person lying?'),
• Beauty (eg, 'is this piece of abstract art beautiful?'),and
• Goodness (eg, 'is this person being kind?')

These are more clearly subjective and harder to pin down. In other words whatever you think the answer to these questions you cannot assume others will agree. Others may argue on how you got the information that your assertion is based on ('tell me what is the evidence for the lie?'), or perhaps with your logic ('why is something this abstract related to your feelings?'), or even the language definition of the words you use ('what does it mean to be kind?').

Tied Up in Knots

Once we start to analyse 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.

We have five key areas where limits are found; Language, Measurement, Models, Logic and Thought;

1. Their studies have concluded that our human language is limited in that any personal language statement cannot be made objective. Wittgenstein’s study of language in the mid-20th century is a landmark of analytical philosophy. Think of this as the speaker having subjectivity problems when speaking about themselves as the object.
2. There are similar problems that occur in physical measurement where the Quantum Theory of Physics describes fundamental uncertainty in measurement as being an unavoidable aspect of nature. We simply cannot pin down measurements with complete certainty we are told, the very act of observation changes the status of the observed in an unpredictable manner. This theory undermined the classical picture of reality as being deterministic in a profound way. In recent studies some physicists are now contemplating that the laws of physics they have worked so hard at deriving may themselves change over time. Lee Smolin's article describes this process with analogy to evolutionary theory 'Never Say Always'. Think of this issue as placing subjective limits on the measurer arising from the act of objective measurement itself.
3. In addition in the area of our building models of reality we have the problem of Incommensurability. Thomas Kuhn shows us that there is no scientific statement which may claim to be objectively true, because; a) all observational data is interpreted in light of scientific theorising (building various models or paradigms), and b) scientific theories are in fact judged after having passed through the interests, biases, and sensibilities of the scientists involved. Think of this as inherent subjective bias in the model building and selection process.
4. Furthermore our mathematical foundations of logic are found to be lacking completeness, in a way that cannot be resolved. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is a paradox of Mathematical Logic. Think of this as the logic system having subjectivity problems in proving the foundations of the logic system itself, ie, the object of proof being itself.
5. Finally there is the Explanatory Gap, whereby some philosophers believe our very thought process itself may be insolvable to our rational mind. Think of this as the thinker having subjectivity problems when thinking about their own thoughts as the object.

These findings may be new to you, if so please take a look at the links provided they are mainly to other entries here in h2g2 and will help you get enough understanding to see the issues more clearly without having to be a specialist.

They have a common root in the subject-object problem. And when taken together represent major seeds of doubt in our fundamental principles of objectivity. As such our modernist perceptions of reality are now seen as being made on a shaky foundation, rendering our subsequent architecture of objective belief and meaning a questionable proposition.

However not everyone thinks this is so, some aspects are argued and we will look in part 3 of this 4 part series of entries on the reaction of philosophical thought to this subject-object problem challenge.

General References

• As Rod Stewart once said, '...I've got faith to believe' (Faith of the Heart). Read news and get insight into faiths of all denomination and background at BBC Religion.

• As Coldplay once said, '...Tell me your secrets, And ask me your questions' (The Scientist). Read the latest from BBC Science.