Faith & Reason Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D. Professor of Religious Studies John Carroll University

Are Faith & Reason Fundamentally Incompatible?

Mis-defining Faith “Faith means that one considers a particular claim (e.g., ‘God exists’) to be actual knowledge, absolutely certain knowledge. This claim to certainty is held in the absence of adequate evidence, or in direct contradiction to the evidence.”“Faith means that one considers a particular claim (e.g., ‘God exists’) to be actual knowledge, absolutely certain knowledge. This claim to certainty is held in the absence of adequate evidence, or in direct contradiction to the evidence.” –P. Wesley Edwards, “Understanding Reason and Faith” ( –What is wrong with this definition? –What about the website might have led you to anticipate that its definition of this term might be slanted?

Inherent Contradiction of Faith? “Faith appears to combine believing something wholeheartedly while lacking sufficient grounds for doing so….” [Hence, “knowing” something by faith appears to be a contradiction in terms.]“Faith appears to combine believing something wholeheartedly while lacking sufficient grounds for doing so….” [Hence, “knowing” something by faith appears to be a contradiction in terms.] “In nonreligious contexts we praise people for adjusting the strength of their beliefs to the quality of the evidence they have, but in religious contexts we find them being praised for ignoring defects in the evidence and persisting in spite of them.”“In nonreligious contexts we praise people for adjusting the strength of their beliefs to the quality of the evidence they have, but in religious contexts we find them being praised for ignoring defects in the evidence and persisting in spite of them.”

Faith v. Belief v. Reason? Belief is “accepting something as truth without 100% evidence.”Belief is “accepting something as truth without 100% evidence.” “Faith is believing a statement that has more evidence against it than for it.”“Faith is believing a statement that has more evidence against it than for it.” “[I]t is clear that Faith is against Reason. If Reason tells us to believe [that] A [is the case], it is called ‘Faith’ to believe ‘It is false that A’ [is the case]….”“[I]t is clear that Faith is against Reason. If Reason tells us to believe [that] A [is the case], it is called ‘Faith’ to believe ‘It is false that A’ [is the case]….” Victor Gijsbers, “Is Atheism based on Faith?” ( Gijsbers, “Is Atheism based on Faith?” ( –What is wrong with this definition of faith, and how does it skew the rest of the argument? –What prima facie characteristic of this website might have led you to anticipate that the author’s definition of “faith” would be less than even-handed?

Defining Faith An attitude of trust (i.e., involves the Will)An attitude of trust (i.e., involves the Will) Belief that exists without unambiguous, confirmatory, material evidence (e.g., the claim goes beyond currently available scientific or historical data)Belief that exists without unambiguous, confirmatory, material evidence (e.g., the claim goes beyond currently available scientific or historical data) Assent to a proposition that cannot (presently) conclusively be demonstrated by reasonAssent to a proposition that cannot (presently) conclusively be demonstrated by reason

Defining Reason “The principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious.”“The principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious.” –Includes (but is not limited to) rules of logical inference –Algorithmic demonstrability is presupposed “Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative.”“Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative.” James Swindal, “Faith and Reason,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( Swindal, “Faith and Reason,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (

The Faculty of Reason Capacity of the human mind to engage in logical thought Conception of ideasConception of ideas JudgmentJudgment –Assessing relative validity of propositions RatiocinationRatiocination –Drawing conclusions through systematic comparison of facts IntuitionIntuition –Insight into relations of data –Not based on conscious process of deduction or induction, but capable of de facto justification (i.e., in “hindsight”)

Reasoning Edwards, op. cit. Applying logical principles to the available evidence (via induction or deduction)Applying logical principles to the available evidence (via induction or deduction) Conclusions of logical reasoning are only as certain as the underlying assumptionsConclusions of logical reasoning are only as certain as the underlying assumptions Scientific theories are derived from inductive reasoning (inference) v. deductionScientific theories are derived from inductive reasoning (inference) v. deduction –Goal is high degree of probability (not absolute certainty) –A theory corroborated by multiple independent tests is “virtually certain”

Relating Faith & Reason (Swindal, op. cit.) Conflict modelConflict model –Aims, objects, or methods are identical Incompatibilist modelIncompatibilist model –Aims, objects, or methods are distinct –Each can be compartmentalized –“Separate but equal” Weak compatibilist modelWeak compatibilist model –Aims, objects, or methods are distinct, but dialogue is possible Strong compatibilist modelStrong compatibilist model –Faith & Reason have “organic connection, perhaps even parity”

Reflection 1.What are the five most important things that you “know,” even though you could not prove them to someone else? What evidence do you have for those beliefs? What kind of evidence is this? 2.In whom (or what) do you place your trust? Why? What are the grounds for that trust? 3.What are the three most significant assumptions you have about life (i.e., ideas that you accept without question and without which you could not function on a daily basis)? 4.What do your three lists have in common?