1. Proof of God? Inquiries into the Philosophy of Religion A Concise Introduction Chapter 12 Faith and Reason By Glenn Rogers, Ph.D. Copyright © 2012 Glenn Rogers

2. Proof of God? Faith and Reason 1. What is the difference between faith and reason and what is the relationship between them? 2. Is it necessary to have reasons for what one believes? 3. If one has reasons for what he believes, does he need faith? 4. Does reason make faith irrelevant? 5. Does faith make reason irrelevant? These are some of the questions related to the topic usually discussed as part of the philosophy of religion under the heading of faith and reason.

3. Proof of God? Faith and Reason What is the difference between faith and reason and how are they related to each other? According to some, there is not much of a relationship between faith and reason. Faith is something they believe and they do not need reasons for believing it. They have faith. For them, faith is faith and reason is reason. For the areas of their lives where faith is what matters (God and religion) reason is not important. For others, faith is rationally rooted and has to do with active believing. It involves trusting or having confidence in something or someone, so much so that their faith impacts how they live. Reason is the logical or rational justification that serves as the foundation for one’s faith. Why do I believe this or that? I believe this or that for this reason, and this reason, and this reason. Reason is the rational justification that underlies one’s faith.

4. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Is it necessary to have reasons for the faith one has? What if one person has faith that X and another has faith that not X. X and not X are polar opposites and both cannot be true or valid regardless of the faith believers may have. Simply because someone has faith in something does not mean that thing is true or valid or right. Someone may fervently believe that 3 + 3 = 7. We know, however, that their belief, no matter how fervent, does not make it so. Faith is not and cannot be self-validating.

5. Proof of God? Faith and Reason For most people, the answer to the question, is it necessary to have reasons for the faith one has, the answer would be, yes, it is essential. This person understands that without rational justification for what one believes one can believe that which makes no sense—such as the moon is made of green cheese. If humans are rational beings they need to be rational, living as rational people, which includes having reasons for what they believe and what they do. To have beliefs without rational justification amounts to beliefs that are irrational or non-rational.

6. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Does reason make faith irrelevant? No. Reason provides faith with a foundation. For example, having rational justification for believing that God exists does not in any way minimize the faith one has in God as God. Faith is not irrational; it makes sense. Faith is built on a solid foundation of rationality. Unfortunately, there are some people of faith, who also happen to be philosophers, who do not agree. Kierkegaard is probably the best known. The Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard believed that much of the content of one’s [Christian] faith system was incompatible with reason and that to “believe” one had to suspend reason

7. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Religious belief based on “faith” that is not grounded in reason is known as Fideism. Such a faith might be described as transrational. However, I believe Kierkegaard was mistaken and will attempt to demonstrate why. Faith can and must be rationally justifiable.

8. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason It is often said that knowledge is comprised of true justified belief. What does that mean, that knowledge has to do with true justified belief? First, if you are to have what can rightly be called knowledge, what you know must be true. For instance, you cannot know that 3 + 3 = 7 because it does not. You might think you know it. You might believe it, but you cannot know that which is not true. For you to know something it must be true. So while it is impossible to know that 3 + 3 = 7, it is possible to know that 3 + 3 = 6, because that is true.

9. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason Second, your belief (in whatever is under consideration, lets say 3 + 3 = 6) must be justified. There must be a good reason for believing what you believe. If I were to ask you why you believe 3 + 3 = 6 and you replied, “I don’t know, I just do,” you would not have knowledge that 3 + 3 = 6. You believe it does, but you do not know it does. What you believe happens to be correct but it is not justified and therefore is not knowledge. If, however, you said, “I know that 3 + 3 = 6 because I worked it out in my head,” or, “I put three blocks on the table and then put three more blocks on the table and then counted them, effectively adding 3 + 3 and saw that they equaled 6,” then you would have what can rightly be called knowledge because your belief that 3 + 3 = 6 is justified.

10. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason What, then, is the relationship between faith (or belief) and knowledge? One can believe without knowing. That is, one can have a belief regarding something without it being true and one can believe something, hopefully something true, without the rational justification that would move it from the realm of belief to knowledge. Which is better, belief or knowledge? I think most people would say it is better to know rather than to merely believe. But knowledge is harder to come by than belief. Why? Because knowledge requires rational justification and belief does not.

11. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Epistemological Issues Related To Faith And Reason The problem is that many people are convinced that there are a great many things that are beyond knowing, that we cannot achieve what can rightly be called knowledge about those things, and must, therefore, be satisfied with merely believing. While it must be the case that there are some things that are beyond knowing, many people abandon the search for truth and justification too easily and too early, settling for fideism when real knowledge is available if they would just keep searching for it.

12. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Properly Basic Belief A belief that is rational though not based on a prior rationally justified belief (as described above) is said to be properly basic. What I have said regarding belief requiring rational justification is a philosophical idea known as foundationalism. It is as old as the Stoics of ancient Greece. The need for an absolutely certain foundation, a rational justification beyond doubt, was what drove Descartes to look for an indubitable truth upon which he could build a philosophical system. He found it in his own ontological reality. Foundationalism has been the dominant way of thinking about questions related to important philosophical questions, especially metaphysical questions, since long before Descartes.

13. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Properly Basic Belief However, there are some beliefs that are so basic that they do not need to be justified by any other fact or reality. For instance, my belief (knowledge) that I have a headache is an insight that is directly available to me and does not need to be founded on anything other than my awareness of the pain in my head. My belief that I have a headache is, therefore, properly basic. It does not need any additional justification (no logical arguments) to be a rational belief.

14. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Properly Basic Belief Plantinga, writing about properly basic beliefs, provides several illustrations of beliefs that are properly basic: 1. Arithmetical truths: 2 + 1 = 3. 2. Simple truths of logic such as: no man is both married and unmarried. 3. Perhaps the generalizations of simple truths of logic such as: for any proposition p the conjunction of p with its denial is false. 4. And certain propositions expressing identity and diversity, for example: 4a. redness is distinct from greenness, 4b. the property of being prime is distinct from the property of being composite, 4c. the proposition, all men are mortal, is distinct from the proposition, all mortals are men

15. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Properly Basic Belief One can see from Plantinga’s examples that properly basic beliefs are, generally speaking, things that are self-evident and therefore that do not need to be based on any prior rationally justified belief. They may not always be as simple as number 1 above, and may require some thoughtful reflection, such as number 3. But upon that reflection, the truth emerges as properly basic and in no need of further justification. Plantinga goes on to specify that from a classical foundationalist point of view, a proposition is properly basic if it is: 1) self-evident, 2) incorrigible (i.e. not capable of being corrected), or 3) evident to the senses.

16. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Properly Basic Belief The question is this: is belief in God properly basic? Is it, 1) something that is evident to the senses? Is it, 2) an incorrigible belief, one about which you cannot be wrong, like believing that 2 + 2 = 4? Or is belief in God, 3) a self-evident truth? Does one simply know that God exists? Let us consider each in turn. 1. Since God is not a physical being he certainly cannot be evident to the senses. Normally, God cannot be seen, heard, touched, and so forth. Generally speaking, belief in God cannot be properly basic from that point of view.

17. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Properly Basic Belief 2. Is belief in God incorrigible, the kind of thing you simply cannot be wrong about? Some might say that it is. Would not such a claim, though, require some sort of an explanation to demonstrate that it is, indeed, incorrigible? Producing such evidence would likely be difficult. 3. Is belief in God self-evident? Perhaps. But properly basic belief in God can be confused with other kinds of belief. For instance, if someone were asked, how is God’s existence self-evident to you, and they responded—Well just look at how complex the world is. It couldn’t have just happened. Someone had to create it this way on purpose. God did it. To me it is self-evident—that person’s belief in God is not properly basic. His belief is not self-evident. It is based on a teleological argument, a prior rational justification—that cosmic order and complexity grow out of intelligent design.

18. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Rational Justification It is clear that something has always existed. The question is, what has always existed. There appear to be only two options: matter or mind. Either mind or matter is eternal. Since we know the cosmos has not always existed but came into being some 13.8 billions years ago, matter is not a good candidate for that which has always existed. If we allow that matter might have been that which always existed and that it alone is responsible for everything that now exists, we run into serious difficulty, for part of what exists now is consciousness and mind. There is simply no way for non-conscious matter to produce (account for) consciousness and thought.

19. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Rational Justification Materialists who claim that consciousness simply arose are making a claim for which there is not one single piece of evidence—empirical or rational. The claim that consciousness just developed, that brains developed and then more complex brains developed and consciousness simply evolved, is a fantastic fairytale that is utterly without support. Arguments in Chs. 2-4 show that there is sound rational justification for believing in the existence of God.

20. Proof of God? Faith and Reason Rational Justification Are faith and reason mutually exclusive? No. One can be a person of faith and a reasonable person who can give reasons for why he or she is a person of faith, as well as specific rational justification for specific features of a given faith system. To deny this is to fail to understand either reason or faith or both. There is no conflict between faith and reason and theists need to stop backing away from rational presentations of what they believe and why. Of course this requires that careful attention is paid to what one believes and why.