Faith And Reason: Always Incompatible?

Faith and reason have long been considered incompatible. Many Christians think that faith and reason are at opposite ends of the spectrum, with reason used to gain knowledge and faith reserved for things that you don't have good reasons for. However, this is not always the case.

The Bible, for example, states that worship must be a sacred service with your power of reason and that it must be worthy of thinking beings. This suggests that faith is not something irrational or blind but is instead based on knowledge and sound reason.

The Thomist conception of faith, set forth by Thomas Aquinas, defines faith as the belief in revealed truths on the authority of God as the ultimate source and guarantor. This type of faith is distinguished from knowledge as it does not compel belief but requires a voluntary act of trusting acceptance.

From a skeptical point of view, faith can be seen as belief without evidence or as belief that is stronger than the evidence warrants. In response to this, the French philosopher Blaise Pascal proposed a voluntarist defence of faith as a rational wager, assuming that divine existence can neither be proved nor disproved.

Other philosophers, such as William James, have refined this approach by limiting it to belief-options that one has some inclination to accept and which have momentous implications. James claimed that individuals have the right to make the positive decision to believe and proceed in their lives on that basis.

The element of risk in faith was emphasised by Kierkegaard, who believed that without risk there is no faith and that faith is a passionate commitment, inwardly necessitated, to that which can be grasped in no other way.

Overall, while faith and reason are often seen as incompatible, there are arguments and examples to suggest that they can coexist and even support each other.

Faith and reason can be compatible, as they are both sources of authority for beliefs

The Bible states that faith and reason are compatible. It says that if your worship is to be "acceptable to God", it must be "a sacred service with your power of reason". In other words, you must worship God "in a way that is worthy of thinking beings". Thus, the faith described in the Bible is not something irrational or a "leap of faith", but something you have thought through carefully, resulting in trust in God and his Word, which is firmly based on reason.

The Bible also says that "faith follows the thing heard", implying that the quality of your faith depends on the information you hear or the dependability of the information you feed your mind. It also states that a fundamental requirement for faith is "an accurate knowledge of truth".

The classic medieval understanding of faith, set forth by Thomas Aquinas, saw it as the belief in revealed truths on the authority of God as their ultimate source and guarantor. Faith, though, extends beyond the findings of reason in accepting further truths such as the triune nature of God and the divinity of Christ. Aquinas thus supported the general Christian view that revelation supplements the findings of sound philosophy.

In the Symposium on Theology and Falsification, Basil Mitchell argued that religious beliefs are either provisional hypotheses, significant articles of faith, or empty or meaningless statements that make no difference in experience or life. He claimed that religious believers do not have bliks (a set of profoundly unfalsifiable assumptions, which people use to order their lives) because they do see things that count against their beliefs, but they do not ultimately believe these things count against their beliefs.

In the context of his philosophy, Aquinas held that human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. For those who cannot or do not engage in such strenuous intellectual activity, however, these matters are revealed and can be known by faith.

Many strongly held scientific beliefs have proved to be wrong. This does not mean that all scientific beliefs are wrong or are not based on reason. Similarly, some religious beliefs may fly in the face of all reason, but this does not mean that all religious beliefs are irrational.

Reason assesses, faith trusts. Reason assesses whether or not something or someone is trustworthy, and then faith believes that certain things are true in light of the reasons. Not blind faith, but a reasonable step of trust.

Faith and reason can be incompatible, as they are fundamentally different ways of understanding the world

Reason is a means of acquiring knowledge through methodological inquiry, be it intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. It involves the principles of logical inference and embodied wisdom. Reason assesses, and knowledge is understood as the apprehension of fact or truth with the mind.

Faith, on the other hand, is a stance towards a claim that is not demonstrable by reason. It involves an act of trust or commitment, and it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer. Faith trusts, and it is not blind but based on knowledge and sound reason.

While some claim that faith and reason are incompatible and exist at opposite ends of the spectrum, others argue that they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, David Horner, in his book "Mind Your Faith", states that faith and reason are partners working together. He defines reason as assessing reasons for a point of view and logical relationships, while faith has components such as an object of faith, content, and trust or commitment. Thus, when properly defined, there is no conflict between faith and reason. Reason assesses, and faith trusts.

However, from a skeptical viewpoint, faith can be seen as belief without evidence or stronger than the evidence warrants. This attracts the charge of irrationality, as belief upon insufficient evidence is deemed irrational. In response, philosophers such as Blaise Pascal and William James proposed a voluntarist defense of faith as a rational wager, arguing that in the absence of proof or disproof, the benefits of believing outweigh the risks of not believing.

Additionally, the element of risk is emphasized in Kierkegaard's idea of the leap of faith, where faith is a passionate commitment inwardly necessitated by the absence of other means of grasping something. This further highlights the incompatibility of faith and reason as fundamentally different ways of understanding and engaging with the world.

Faith is not blind, but a thoughtful consideration of evidence

The idea that faith and reason are incompatible is a common one. British philosopher A.C. Grayling sums up this view, stating that "faith is a negation of reason". However, this perspective fails to acknowledge that many strongly held scientific beliefs have been proven wrong over time, and yet we do not consider all scientific beliefs to be wrong or irrational.

The faith described in the Bible, for example, is not blind or irrational but is instead based on knowledge and sound reason. The Bible states that worship must be "a sacred service with your power of reason" and that it must be "worthy of thinking beings". Thus, true faith is something that has been thoughtfully considered and carefully scrutinised, resulting in a trust in God and His Word.

Reasoning properly requires accurate information. The Bible acknowledges this, stating that "an accurate knowledge of truth" is a fundamental requirement for faith. It encourages individuals to "make sure of all things" and to test out the things they hear before believing them, as faith based on falsehood is mere delusion.

The kind of faith built on Biblical teachings is compatible with reason. It is not a sign of disrespect to examine one's beliefs in the light of reason and to prove to oneself that their thinking is in harmony with God's Word. This process of thoughtful consideration and scrutiny of evidence is essential to developing a strong and rational faith.

From a philosophical perspective, the relationship between faith and reason is a complex topic that has been debated by many thinkers. Some, like Thomas Aquinas, view faith as the belief in revealed truths that are ultimately guaranteed by God. In this view, faith is distinguished from knowledge, as the propositions accepted by faith do not compel assent but require a voluntary act of trusting acceptance.

Skeptics may argue that this conception of faith amounts to belief without evidence or belief that is stronger than the evidence warrants. In response, philosophers like Blaise Pascal and William James have proposed a voluntarist defence of faith as a rational wager. They argue that since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, it is rational to believe and act on this basis, as one has little to lose if wrong but gains eternal life if right.

Other philosophers, like Kierkegaard, emphasise the element of risk in faith, seeing it as a passionate commitment that is inwardly necessitated. For Kierkegaard, without risk, there is no faith, and the greater the risk, the greater the faith.

Ultimately, while the question of whether faith and reason are compatible is complex and multifaceted, it is clear that faith is not blind. It involves thoughtful consideration and scrutiny of evidence, resulting in a trust in God that is compatible with reason.

Faith is a choice, a passionate commitment to something that can't be grasped by reason

Faith and reason have long been considered incompatible, with some claiming that faith is a negation of reason. However, this view assumes that faith is blind and irrational, or a "leap of faith". In reality, faith is often based on knowledge and sound reason. The Bible, for instance, describes faith as "a sacred service with your power of reason" and "a careful scrutiny of all available data".

According to Thomas Aquinas, faith is the belief in revealed truths on the authority of God, which requires a voluntary act of trusting acceptance. This understanding of faith is distinct from knowledge, which compels belief through self-evident or demonstrable propositions. Faith also differs from opinion, which is inherently changeable and allows for the possibility of doubt.

From a skeptical perspective, faith may be seen as belief without evidence or as stronger than the evidence warrants. In response to this, the French philosopher Blaise Pascal proposed a "wager" defence of faith, arguing that it is rational to believe in God as one has little to lose and everything to gain. A similar argument was put forward by the American philosopher William James, who claimed that individuals are entitled to decide which risks to run when it comes to matters of faith.

The element of risk in faith was emphasised by Kierkegaard, who believed that faith is a passionate commitment to something that cannot be grasped by reason. For Kierkegaard, faith is an inwardly necessitated choice, and the greater the risk, the greater the faith.

While faith and reason may seem incompatible at first glance, a closer examination reveals a more complex relationship. Faith is not necessarily blind or irrational, but rather a thoughtful and considered choice based on available information and personal experience.

Faith and reason can be complementary, with reason defending the propriety of trusting one's faith

Different conceptions of faith cohere with different views of its relation to reason or rationality. The classic medieval understanding of faith, set forth by Thomas Aquinas, saw it as the belief in revealed truths on the authority of God as their ultimate source and guarantor. Thus, though the ultimate object of faith is God, its immediate object is the body of propositions articulating the basic Christian dogmas. Such faith is to be distinguished from knowledge. Whereas the propositions that are the objects of scientia, or knowledge, compel belief by their self-evidence or their demonstrability from self-evident premises, the propositions accepted by faith do not thus compel assent but require a voluntary act of trusting acceptance. As unforced belief, faith is “an act of the intellect assenting to the truth at the command of the will”.

In the wider context of his philosophy, Aquinas held that human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul; for those who cannot or do not engage in such strenuous intellectual activity, however, these matters are also revealed and can be known by faith. Faith, though, extends beyond the findings of reason in accepting further truths such as the triune nature of God and the divinity of Christ. Aquinas thus supported the general (though not universal) Christian view that revelation supplements, rather than cancels or replaces, the findings of sound philosophy.

From a skeptical point of view, which does not acknowledge divine revelation, this Thomist conception amounts to faith—belief that is without evidence or that is stronger than the evidence warrants, the gap being filled by the believer’s own will to believe. As such it attracts the charge that belief upon insufficient evidence is always irrational.

In response to this kind of attack, the French philosopher Blaise Pascal proposed a voluntarist defence of faith as a rational wager. Pascal assumed, in disagreement with Thomas Aquinas but in agreement with much modern thinking, that divine existence can neither be proved nor disproved. He reasoned, therefore, that if one decides to believe in God and to act on this basis, one gains eternal life if right but loses little if wrong, whereas if one decides not to believe, one gains little if right but may lose eternal life if wrong, concluding that the rational course is to believe.

The Bible says, for example, that if your worship is to be “acceptable to God”, it must be “a sacred service with your power of reason”. In other words, you must worship God “in a way that is worthy of thinking beings”. So the faith described in the Bible is not something blind and irrational, or a leap of faith, as some have called it. And it is not credulity. Rather, it is something you have thought through carefully​—resulting in trust in God and his Word, which is firmly based on reason.

Reason can defend the propriety of trusting one's faith. It can defend the propriety of trusting one's faith by assessing whether or not something or someone is trustworthy. It can also defend the propriety of trusting one's faith by assessing whether or not there is adequate justification for a belief.

Frequently asked questions