PART 4: A REASONED INTER-FAITH DIALOG

HOW TO KNOW?¹

Truth and Tolerance

This is the final part of the 4 part series on Truth and Tolerance – Integrating Faith and Reason. We have in earlier entries looked at the so called dialectic of faith and reason, and looked if we can make a synthesis of these worldviews. We reviewed the way faith looks to reason to give it coherence and consistency, and examined the subject-object problem that undermines our modernist concept of objective truth. In part 3 we considered the question if this was leading up to the end of the Modern era, ushering in a different perspective (albeit one that was not so radical Post-Modern as to hold all truths subjective and equal in terms of validity) and the knotty problems that would have to be solved with such an integrating worldview.

The Gordian Knot is a legend associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem, solved by a bold stroke ('cutting the Gordian knot'). To solve the subject-object knot we need such boldness.

One way to restore objective truth in a world wrestling with the subjective problems is to say we simply assert some axiom (a thing we know as being true, absolute and objective) and see if the resulting statement of beliefs 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 this Axiomatic Truth is 'very good' (ie, coherent and consistent).

The reason-based approach has an aspect that we can describe as a Bottom-up approach, whereby we take small steps in finding truths, in a reductive or atomic manner (ie, we try to reduce a problem to its core foundation and axioms).

Whereas the faith-based approach we can describe as a Top-down approach, whereby we seek the key principles and axioms that identify truths, in a system or holistic manner (ie, we try to find a conceptual framework in which all of the pieces of the puzzle neatly fit into a overarching system or worldview).

Both methods are valid, each has its benefits and risks. Perhaps in a very real sense the dialectic of the reductive and systems approach mirrors the reason and faith-based dialectic.

Thomas Kuhn in his work 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' developed a model for how we solve key crises and puzzles in science, and perhaps life in general. In summary it involves²;

1. Understanding science as a puzzle solving process, a process we have described here as being a reductive bottom-up process, within a current model of reality or paradigm.
2. These paradigms themselves are held within the overall worldview that in major revolutions in thought undergoes a top-down re-examination.
3. Kuhn acknowledges that a key driver for the rejection of an old paradigm for a new one is often what he describes as an appeal to an aesthetic sense of what is more neat, simple, true, symmetrical, etc. He describes this specifically in subjective terms.

The Platonic triad of truth, beauty and goodness is apparent in this process step 3, as we discussed in Part 2 of this series.

Bottom Up Truth

Later on in that Entry we also we examined the claims that faith and reason-based worldviews could in some respects be claimed to exist in a symbiotic relationship, whereby each could offer to the other support. We touched on the immanent philosophy of Spinoza, where if we have faith in the immanence of reality, then we can say that objective truth exists in the universe.

And following the philosophy of Kierkegaard if we are prepared to make some measured and reasoned leaps of faith to set out axioms from which we build on (a bottom-up method of establishing foundations one by one), then we can access that objective truth and build-up a worldview that avoids some of these subjective problems. In this way we in effect cut through the knot by boldly asserting that we have knowledge.

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 naive set theory.

From these axioms we can build the foundations of mathematics. Most non-specialists don’t appreciate how hard it is to prove that 1+1=2 is TRUE and 1+1=3 is FALSE. Take a look at the work 'Principia Mathematica' of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead³ who introduced the Propositional Calculus to build a logical foundation for Mathematics (that Godel proved was incomplete within itself). Nevertheless, hopefully you get the picture of how hard it is to describe the truth in logical terms.

Doing this gets us started on a slippery slope. Once you start to build webs of axiomatic truth statements (that are like little 'atoms' of a personal faith-based system) to fill in these subjective gaps 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 complex 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 big problem on our hands!

Top Down Truth

Is it possible for us to analyse the Top-down approach to truth in a similar way to how we resolved the subject-object objection in the bottom-up method of building objective truth above? In Part 2 we discussed the transcendent philosophy of Kant. If we have faith in the transcendence of reality, and that we assert that objective truth exists outside of the universe we live in, but is nevertheless possible through Kierkegaard's leaps of faith to personally sense the truth of a worldview.⁴

The advantage of taking the risk to develop our top-down worldview is that can augment the bottom-up method, particularly in the tricky areas of human truths. The worldview we consider may evolve as we 'render' an internally consistent and coherent system (using a method of stripping away what is redundant, a process that over time seeks objective perfection of the transcendent truths in the worldview).

One solution in this area that the faith-based traditions can offer to the reason-based ones is a worldview that at least limited let us say to ethics and morals alone is pre-built, something they say has stood the test of time and its interpretation has evolved to be as close as we can to be objectively true. Using his faith-based system, Pope Benedict XVI was bold enough to say in his recent book 'Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions'⁵;

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 it's also true that not all faith-based perspectives need to be centered on the belief-in-God proposition. For example legitimate faith-based propositions are possible that are Humanist-based, whilst some take Science as a basis for faith, Scientism is popular, though not always explicitly stated.⁶ But the common aspect is they are all based on faith (as defined by Fowler in Part 2) in some form of objective truth principles.

With this said how do we make reasoned judgment about the many top-down faith-based worldviews? If all views have some truth, but not all the truth, the question becomes one of a mutually agreed arbitration (coming to a common understanding). It is important to note that this does not mean necessarily coming to one single worldview. Individuals retain their right to their worldview, but where they meet there is a consensus on how to live together harmoniously.

In such a way we may seek to build on the philosophical tradition of Natural Law for moral and ethical standards. For simplicity we may wish to limit the Faith-based worldview to just those issues (and the relationship between man and God, if such is part of the tradition) and the Reason-based worldview to remaining empirical issues, following the argument of Non-Overlapping Magistria of Science and Religion (the NOMA argument of Stephen Jay Gould), though the dividing line between Magisteria is something more complex and we need to take care over this (for example over the issue of divine providence). This issue can be supported by this bottom-up/top-down dialog we have discussed, see Michael Ruse review of Gould's book 'Rock of Ages'.

Determining Common Truths through Tolerant Dialog

Both bottom-up and top-down methods are valid, though each have their own draw-backs and benefits. A creative opportunity exists in bringing them together in an inclusive dialog.

By building effective inter-faith dialog in terms of both;

• Within the different bottom-up and top-down approaches ensuring coherence of truth in them, as well as,
• Between them, at the interface or meeting point ensuring consistency of truth from one to the other.

With this approach we can come to form better understanding and look for 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 tolerance for this dialog. Unfortunately this is far from being a given, it seems many are intolerant of dialog for various reasons, including the political use of religion as a tool of social control. But to be balanced it is argued that the contradictions of atheistic assumption in the social sciences continues to be present in education and social institutions.

If we can nevertheless find a way to proceed with this dialog, for it to be genuine it ideally needs to steer clear of statements of exclusivity ('my truths are the only truths' - which renders a dialog of the deaf) and radical post-modern pluralism ('all is equally true' - such relativism renders a pointless dialog), rather being one that is inclusive ('I see aspects of your truth within what I see as true' - offering an opportunity to see common objective understandings).

A Recommitment to Reason and Faith

Many of the great questions of life, including social and political questions, are ultimately addressable by faith-based reasoning. How we reason about faith has much to do with how we judge what is good and what is wicked, and with how we think about the appropriate methods for advancing truth in a world in which there are profound disagreements. But only with the application of reason can we be secure that the integrated worldview is fitting to our holistic understanding of reality.

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. In George Weigels's (Washington Ethics and Public Policy Center) opinion on the Regensburg Address he says:

Furthermore if the West's high culture keeps playing in the 'sandbox of postmodern irrationalism' in which there is 'your truth' and 'my truth' but nothing such as 'the truth'. The West will be unable to defend itself. Why? Because the West won't be able to give reasons why its commitments to civility, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law are worth defending. A Western world stripped of convictions about the truths that make Western civilization possible cannot make a useful contribution to a genuine dialogue of civilizations, for any such dialogue must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things.

That Western and Eastern (and for that matter any points of the compass!) faith-based traditions can find dialog on shared understandings of objective truth can be seen in the earlier comments concerning the triad of Truth, Goodness and Beauty appearing within many traditions, and on so many other issues one can find shared understanding.

Much the same can be said to those who are radically and exclusively committed to reason or faith-based worldviews that reject that the alternative has any voice worthy of being listened to in this respect. There also is the need for a tolerant dialog, so as to reconcile the bottom-up and top-down differences in views on truth, whilst being inclusive in dialog over truths. In this respect the Regensburg address can be summarised as saying;

• 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.
• An inclusive and genuine inter-faith dialog to arrive at objective human truths is to be encouraged based on reason.
• And violence in support of a faith-based tradition is irrational.

Is the Pope's commentary a proven position? Certainly some would not go that far (particularly given what we have said above about the difficulty to prove anything!). Though it's certainly one based on a long tradition of thought and remains current. It is a view that offers hope that we can increase our understanding of truth and meaning in an otherwise intolerant world.

Are we there yet?

It may seem odd and a bit perplexing to some that reason and faith, often suspected enemies may actually exist in a kind of symbiotic relationship, some see this as a kind of Cosmic Joke ⁸. Notwithstanding this broadly speaking this was nevertheless the serious thesis of the Pope’s Regensburg University 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.⁹

The point has been around a long time, and it’s as relevant today as it was in Socrates time c 470 B.C.E.

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.