A Reader's Questions on Faith and Reason
February 16th 2000
[This is an expanded version of an article of mine appearing in Humanism Scotland - Spring 2000.]
A regular reader of Atheist Thought has asked me the following direct questions. Here are my (I hope) equally direct answers; I invite readers' comments.
Q. Do you think that belief can supersede rationality?
A. Yes it can and does - if you let it - but mature thinkers try to avoid falling into that error. To put unquestioned belief above reason is the obvious escape route from hard thinking that people resort to when they feel insecure. And millions do - and always have done. (The "opium of the people, the cry of the oppressed spirit").
Q. Do you think this is the case with most believers?
A. Yes, sadly, I think it is the case ..... most especially with 'fundamentalist' believers rather than with liberal believers. A useful distinction between these two sorts of believers is that the former tend to believe a lot (often belligerently) and think very little ....... while the latter tend to think a lot (often agonisingly) and end up believing very little. (Try asking a liberal Christian what precise meaning should be attached to 'hell' and 'heaven').
Q. Is this when faith comes into existence?
A. Partly but not wholly so, I think. There are few, if any, absolute certainties so faute de mieux we all have to proceed on perceived probabilities. Was it not the previous Archbishop of York who said something like "the lust for certainty may be sin." ? (Notice "may be"; to have said 'is' would itself have made the remark an assertion of certainty).
It is an article of humanist faith that we, the human species, can sufficiently identify and solve our problems in this world without recourse to any 'other-worldly' entities that may, or may not, exist. There is no proof that this article of faith is true but we proceed on the unfalsifiable assumption that it is a tenable basis for running our lives, both individually and collectively.
Likewise the principle of induction (that a large number similar particular instances guarantee a general certainty) is scarcely defensible yet we adopt it as an operational article of faith; the result of so doing is 'knowhow'.
Q. Are there any philosophical writings on the need for belief?
A. I am sure there must be. (Other readers' suggestions would help) but your use of the word "need" suggests that psychological writings may be more useful in this connection. (Suggestions, please).
Q. And (finally) is faith a condition that allows reason to be dispensed with?
A. Absolutely not! Even the faith-laden Catholic Church is strictly rationalist in the sense that it argues rationally from premises to conclusions. For example, on the premise that procuring abortion is wrong, the Church would even deny abortion opportunities to women made pregnant by gang rape. It is a characteristic of pure rationality - premises to conclusions - that it does not let a little thing like human suffering stand in the way.
The error that rationalists tend to make is that of oversimplification. In the case of the Vatican's insistence that abortion is wrong - even in the case of rape victims - the error is to proceed from one premise only (that abortion is wrong) rather than from at least three premises - that abortion is an evil AND that human suffering is an evil to be alleviated AND that people should properly have choice as to which of several admitted evils they must accept.
Given those three premises .... there is no clear rationally unambiguous outcome to the rape/abortion issue and so the question becomes one of 'when to and when not to'. ("The lust for certainty .....")
Sometimes rationalists simply tell lies to cover their tracks. A Minister of the Kirk - admittedly one whom his colleagues regarded as a bit of a nutter - was discussing with me the vexed question (vexed to him) of the possible legitimacy of abortion in rape cases.
He forced me to abandon the discussion when he claimed (I quote him precisely) that "rape never leads to pregnancy". I forbore to ask him whether, in that case, rape would count as a 'natural' method of contraception. I had never previously thought of enforced wifely obedience as a family limitation tactic!
In general I would say - identify, examine critically, and admit to, the articles of faith you hold and proceed rationally from them but ONLY in the light of what really can, and really does, happen in the vast and varied area of avoidable human suffering.
E.S.
HOME PAGE