Faith and rationality

Faith and rationality are two modes of belief which are seen to exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Faith is generally defined as belief not grounded in evidence and reason, while rationality is belief based on logic and/or material evidence.

Broadly speaking, there are three categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs must be held without evidence or reason, or even in conflict with evidence and reason. Thomism holds that faith and rationality are compatible, so that the evidence and reason ultimately lead to belief in the objects of faith.

Relationship between faith and rationality
Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of god or the validity or value of religion; it only rejects any belief based on faith alone. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. To be semantically precise, definitions of faith and rationalism are in logical opposition.

Beliefs held "by faith" may be seen existing in a number of relationships to rationality:
 * Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality. This justification applies largely to the historical philosophy of continental rationalism, and less so to modern application of rationalism.
 * Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues which science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but which are nevertheless entirely real. Accordingly, faith is seen as complementing rationality, by providing answers to questions that would otherwise be unanswerable.
 * Faith as contradicting rationality: In this view, faith is seen as those views that one holds despite evidence and reason to the contrary. Accordingly, faith is seen as pernicious with respect to rationality, as it prevents the very ability to think.

Faith as underlying rationality
The view that faith underlies all rationality holds that rationality is dependant on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory, and reason, because the foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by evidence or reason.

The characterization of rationalism described here is continental rationalism, not modern rationalism. René Descartes, for example, argued along these lines in Meditations on First Philosophy, in which he argued that all human perceptions could be an illusion manufactured by an evil demon. Illustrations of this view, are also common in popular culture, with movies such as The Matrix illustrating and challenging faith in the senses, and movies such as Total Recall illustrating and challenging faith in memories. Similarly, Theravaada Buddhism holds that all perceived reality is simply illusion. Thus, it is argued, there is no way to prove beyond doubt that what we perceive is real, so that all our beliefs depend on faith in our senses and memories.

Reformed epistemology asserts that certain beliefs cannot be proven by reason but must be accepted by faith, and Christian philosophers and apologists such as Alvin Plantinga have proposed that beliefs of this type are "properly basic" -- that is, that they are reasonably and even necessarily held without evidentiary support. Instead, these beliefs are held because one is "naturally inclined" to believe them. For example, one cannot prove in any real sense that one has a headache -- one simply senses it, and knows it to be true. Although a headache can be replicated in some circumstances, under other circumstances the causes are not known, and the headache can neither be caused nor terminated -- yet the experience of the headache is real and undeniable -- something that one simply "knows." Plantinga goes on to argue that belief in God is properly basic in the same way -- that belief in God need not come through evidence and argument but may be a "properly basic" belief grounded in natural and intuitive experience.

Solipsism applies reasoning similar to the above to arrive at the conclusion that only the self exists, and all reality is simply a function of one's mind, on the basis that only one's existence can be proven. This view which was first recorded with the presocratic sophist Gorgias. Plantinga asserts that argument does not incorporate solipsisms in that while it acknowledges that many things cannot be proven by evidence and reason, it also affirms that things exist outside the mind. Thus, it concludes that faith allows us to "know" things that cannot be strictly proven.

It should be noted that the sense of "rationalism" being refered to here is continental rationalism. Modern rationalism has little in common with the historical philosophy of continental rationalism expounded by René Descartes and others which rely on solipsitic reasoning. Indeed, a reliance on empirical science is often considered a hallmark of modern rationalism, whereas Continental Rationalism rejected empiricism entirely.

Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality
The position that faith addresses issues beyond the scope of rationality holds that faith supplements rationality, because the scope of rational human knowledge is limited.

This view was articulated in the Bible as follows: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1. Similarly, in 1st Corithians 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." In essence, under this view, faith corresponds to beliefs which, although quite possibly true, cannot yet be fully grasped by our reason.

Some have argued that strict rationalism to the exclusion of this type of faith erroneously concludes that because rational thought is successful at explaining some things, knowledge that comes from beyond the realm of rational thought is illegitimate. According to this line of reasoning,
 * "Our science-dominated culture has ruled out religious experience as a clue to reality; but on what grounds? Science in the 1600’s was so successful in understanding the physical dimension of reality that people in the 1700’s began to think that the physical may be the only dimension of reality. But success in one area of inquiry does not invalidate other areas. The burden of proof is on those who would exclude a particular kind of experience from being a source of knowledge."

Under this view, faith is not static belief divorced from reason and experience, and is not illegitimate as a source of knowledge. On the contrary, belief by faith starts with the things known by reason, and extends to things which are true, although they cannot be understood, and is therefore legitimate insofar as it answers questions that rational thought is incapable of addressing. As such, beliefs held by this form of faith are seen dynamic and changing as one grows in experience and knowledge; until one's "faith" becomes "sight."

Faith as contradicting rationality
The position that faith contradicts rationality holds that beliefs held by faith alone are held without justification. Those who hold this position believe that any belief held without a rational justification is arbitrary. In their view applying faith consistently undermines the ability to think. When truth is determined by faith, dogma, "intuitive experience" or "sight" rather than reason and factual analysis, there is no objective criteria for determining a statement as true. Wishful thinking and other cognitive biases will result in arbitrary ideas, true or false, being accepted, in turn resulting in contradictions. The resultant contradictions prevent higher level abstractions from being made and rationalizations for beliefs held hence become increasingly abstruse and attenuated. An example would be the claim that faith accesses things beyond the ability of reason which are "true," though they cannot provide proof for the claim &mdash; hence, a tautology. Those who believe that faith contradicts rationality argue that to the degree which ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.

Various justifications and criticisms
The justifications for faith as rational are based on semantic and epistemological strategies:
 * 1) Less semantically precise definitions of rationalism that allow for faith to be accommodated as rational.
 * 2) A broadening of the definition of faith to include faith as a belief that rests on logical proof or material evidence.
 * 3) A broadening of the definitions of proof, evidence, logic, rational, etc., to allow for a lower standard of proof.
 * 4) Attacking the epistemological underpinnings of rationality by asserting that certain beliefs not supported by reason or evidence are still properly basic because they are intuitive or that we are "naturally inclined" to believe them.

Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are common to those who hold that faith addresses issues beyond the scope of rationality. Number 4 is put forth by those who hold that faith underlies rationality.

Proponents of rationalism and other critics respond by pointing out that the semantical arguments, numbers 1 through 3, are a special pleading, a fallacious form of argument.

It is also argued that were number 4, the epistemological attack on basis of rationality, indeed valid it would be possible to regard any arbitrary belief as rational; one could argue belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be properly basic using the same reasoning. Advocates of Reformed epistemology assert that they have a criterion of proper basicality; one arrived at inductively. They distinguish between the beliefs and the conditions under which one is believing and correlate the beliefs and the conditions into recognizable groups of those which are properly basic and those which are not properly basic. They argue that as beings we are "naturally inclined" toward belief in God and that because of this condition faith is properly basic and rational, but belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or other logical absurdities lack such a condition, are not properly basic and hence not rational.

Other people of faith have adopted the position that faith is implicitly irrational and have embraced the putative irrationality of faith as a demonstration of devotion to one's beliefs and deity. For example, Fideism specifically recommends that one not be rational.

Apologetics and philosophical justifications of faith as rational

 * Faithquest.com published works of William Alston
 * Faithandphilosophy.com founded by William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Richard Mouw
 * Society of Christian Philosophers founded again by William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Richard Mouw
 * Faith, Reason, and Rationality a debate between Douglas Jones and Michael Shermer from Credenda Agenda, a publication of the Presbyterian Church
 * Faith and reason the philosophy of religion website

Neutral critiques and analysis

 * Lecture on The Rationality of Religious Belief Contemporary Christian Philosophy, University of Texas
 * Are Christian Beliefs Properly Basic? A critical examination of Alvin Plantinga's claim that Christian beliefs can be justified even without any evidence for them by Keith DeRose, Professor of Philosophy, Yale University

Criticisms of faith as rational

 * Irrational Faith Importanceofphilosophy.com

Historical overview of the relationship between faith and reason

 * Faith and Reason Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy