Knowledge & Faith
May 2nd, 2008 | by Catherine Amber | Published in Featured, Theology | 4 Comments
An intern at my workplace has an interesting philosophy class at her high school. We talk about some of the questions she has to wrestle with and I thought I’d throw this one out for Epinoia consideration and ideas.
Some people say that religious beliefs can neither be justified nor refuted by reason. However while sometimes this claim is used as a reason for rejecting religious beliefs at other times it is used to conclude that these beliefs are established by faith. To what extent is faith a legitimate basis for knowledge claims in religion and the different areas of knowledge?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm (#)
“Some people say that religious beliefs can neither be justified nor refuted by reason.”
I feel the necessity to define the terms here. Religious beliefs, I am assuming, simply means any belief that pertains to one’s individual religious experiences, as well as the religious institutions to which they adhere. If that is the definition that the statement proceeds from, then it is logically foolish to say. I can believe that Jesus was of Jewish decent, that places like Jerusalem and Jericho existed, and I can be proven right. Logically then, these can be justified by reason. And if there are aspects of religion and the religious experience that can be supported by reason, then it can logically proceed that other aspects of it as well could be, though the ground becomes a little shakier.
“However, while sometimes this claim is used as a reason for rejecting religious beliefs, at other times it is used to conclude that these beliefs are established by faith.”
No doubt this claim can be used to reject beliefs. The logic behind this seeks to suggest that since faith cannot be known in the same way that matters of science are known (i.e. experimentation and duplication of results) that there is then no validity to the claims that emanate therefrom. But this is illogical, because even in the scientific community, while experience and personal insight are not necessarily valid for “proof,” they are valid for knowledge. If all that we knew was what could be proved, what a shallow existence that would be. To suggest that the human experience is not “reasonable” is to reject the wisdom and insight of any great individuals into the human condition, and it ultimately leads to the rejection of every human experience, if it is carried out to it’s logical end. If the only things subject to reason were able to be proven, then all memory would be illogical and unreasonable, since it is all unprovable. Yet we rely on it in a court of law.
“To what extent is faith a legitimate basis for knowledge claims in religion and the different areas of knowledge?”
Faith cannot be substituted for anything in the scientific realms. I cannot have faith that gravity will not hold me down, because it will anyway. Faith cannot exclude reason, but reason cannot account for faith. There is an element of reason in faith, but ultimately, any expression of faith must come at the suspension of true “reason.” If faith is to be established, it must be established outside of the normal means of logic, or outside of that which has already been proved. If something has already been proved, then to suggest that faith enters into the equation is facetious. I do not have faith that two plus two will equal 4. I know that. I do have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow, for although there is an established precedent, there is still the opportunity that it will not be so. The earth’s perpetual rotation around the sun are not matters of faith, but it IS a matter of faith to believe that they will continue to act in a like manner for the next hour, day, year, etc.
There is much that logic and reason cannot account for, and we deem them miracles. However, things that are less miraculous occur everyday, but they are taken for granted, because we have lumped them in with “logic and reason.” The sun rising is an example. Spring bringing flowers is an example. These are things that occur routinely, but don’t mistake routine for something that is a logical necessity.
Just some initial thoughts to get the conversation started. I will probably come back to this and revise it as new ideas are introduced.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:19 am (#)
You have expressed a great deal of reasonable thinking about faith and reason. I would like to add two or three insights that work for me about them.
Many people do not realize that the Big Bang theory about the universe originated from those within the Christian church. It is a theory that is constantly being examined, that seems to explain the origin of the universe very well.
As my physics professor once said, “You can always ask why.” Meaning there are “never” any final answers to anything.
I learned that it is quite possible that God does not exist; however, it is quite possible that God does exist. Learning to live with this kind of uncertainty is important, because we always want answers in order to be certain, in order to feel good about what we know, about what we are doing. Well, the only thing that is certain is that there is uncertainty. An illogical stance, I reckon that’s what it is.
Faith? The word originates from folks involved in religious behaviors, who believe things about life, believe things about God. Not every religion describes faith in the same terms. Christians have some understandings about faith. I do.
I know that the existence of God is not certain. I know from my religious experiences that God probably does exist. What I feel emotionally and physically belongs to me and is not subject to dispute from others. What I experience as a result of religious behavior is also mine and cannot be disputed. It might not always be the same as others, yet I conclude there is something beyond me. I believe it just as strongly as you believe you could go to the store and buy groceries and come back home. And yet, and yet even my strong belief cannot be a certainty. You can’t be completely certain you could go to and come back from the store, no matter how strong you know you can.
Faith, that for me is what is called the big step, the leap that takes me beyond uncertainty. I simply “choose” to accept that love in this world can only come from God. Love is God’s big bang for humanity, just as much as the big bang is God’s likely method creating the universe in which his love resides.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm (#)
I’ve missed hanging out here and reading all of this. Thanks you guys.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:00 am (#)
I don’t believe we need to prove anything to anybody. My faith is based on the transformation of my heart, the undeniable truth of God’s workd, and the love I have for my savior. There is no doubt in my mind that God exists, that he is soverign and that he is real.
Religion seeks to deny or convince. Jesus did neither. I have family members who I know could be healed of various struggles and issues if they would just put their trust in Christ. Can I convince them of it? Sure, if I want to alienate them. But that’s not my calling. All I’m supposed to do is love them, and live my life so that the light and love of Christ shines like a lamp that gives light in a room. Even so, we as individuals have a choice to make: to accept or deny the gift of God’s grace.
Jesus spoke the truth in love, and desires to have relationship with his children. Knowledge is good, as Proverbs points out numerous times. But what good is knowledge without love? If my purpose in life is to gain knowledge and convince others to believe, then I’ve missed the purpose of life. Who cares if faith defies knowledge, or if knowledge seeks to disprove faith? God can take care of Himself. What matters is that I love God, live my life to serve and honor him; obey his commands, and love others despite their faith or knowledge.
I know in my heart what I believe. No amount of knowledge could ever prove or disprove my salvation. It’s a matter of the heart, and only God can search out and know the heart.