Faith vs. Reason
82I make no pretensions of being an authority on philosophy, but I have done my fair share of study on the subject. One branch of philosophy in particular that I enjoy studying is epistemology - the branch of philosophy that deals with how to define, acquire and classify knowledge.
As humanity progressed, attempts were made to developed methods of acquiring knowledge that would enable us to arrive at accurate conclusions about our reality. This resulted in many failed or inadequate methods. However, from these failed attempts, we came to know what works and doesn't work. As a result of this trial and error process of methodological natural selection - if you will, ever more refined methods for acquiring knowledge have emerged. None of them, even now, are perfect. However, they are currently the best and most reliable methods that have ever been utilized. The fruits that have been yielded from the use of these methods are readily observable to anyone, for the very thing that you are staring at at this moment is the result of the use of such methods.
The methods I speak of are things like the scientific method and the principles of logic. Properly utilized, these methods are a candles in the darkness, ways to navigate the landscape of reality that have the potential to lead us into a more prosperous future. I am a firm advocate of the use of methodologies that are proven to yield reliable results, but I reject the use of faith as a basis for belief. People like me are often criticised for being cold and faithless rationalists, but what what does faith have to offer?
Faith is subjective, and as such, faith yields only subjective conclusions. Many people profess faith in things like God, which is why there are so many differing opinions about God. No objective truths can be arrived at through the use of faith. For this reason I am of the opinion that, in order to arrive at conclusions about our reality that are accurate, only proven methods that rely on the empirical and the objective can be relied upon. The superiority of these established methods over other ways of acquiring knowledge is self-evident.
Social, cultural and emotional factors can influence a persons thinking and lead them to inaccurate conclusions about reality. However, methodologies that are reliable in the acquisition of knowledge are designed to circumvent these factors. If I were standing in a building with another individual we might have differing opinions about the comfort level of the temperature or the intensity of the light, but we would not have differing opinions that we were in fact standing in a building. That is the difference between subjective and objective knowledge. One is confined to the individual perception and one is open to collective perception.
As a rationalist, I try not to make assumptions about reality. However, in the interest of discussion, it is not wrong to offer a proposition for consideration, even if its veracity is not yet established. This, in my view, is completely acceptable and an essential part of acquiring knowledge. It is unsubstantiated or unfalsifiable truth statements that I have a problem with. As a rationalist, I also don't believe in absolute certainty, only sliding scales of probability. In my view, methods for acquiring knowledge can only be used to tell us what is likely to be true and what is likely to be false.
I choose only to make conclusions based on what can be determined true (not certain) by empirical observation or reasoned argument. Does this make me faithless? Yes, and I'm not ashamed to say so. Through social inculcation, faith, especially of the religious kind, has been touted as a virtue. In my opinion, this is undeserved and unwarranted. Why would believing something to be true without evidence be virtuous? The notion of faith as a virtue is most likely of religious origin since, in any other aspect of life, believing something to be true without due cause is said to be gullible or naive. It is because religious belief cannot be substantiated by evidence that faith has been deemed by religious fiat to be a virtue.
Faith is hope - faith is desire - faith is opinion. Rationalism is none of these things. There is no reason to think that faith is good and I challenge the reader to offer a good reason for thinking the contrary.
I leave you with a quote from a man that, in his day, was highly respected for his rationalistic approach to knowledge.
"In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" - Thomas Henry Huxley
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Interesting how once I may have had faith, now I demand the experience to anything metaphysical. The more I see, the more I want to see and the word faith goes out the window in favor of rational explanations. Helps to have a language for those experiences, but faith is not in the vocabulary.
Paraglider, Jewels - Thanks for reading and commenting. I think this world would probably be a much better and safer place if more people thought rationally and abandoned faith altogether. I used to be a man of faith, but I realized at some point that it was - well - irrational.
As Jewels said, one big problem is a lack of language to describe internal events without a religious bias. I am... how can I put it... a rational mystic... or an esoteric atheist or a gnostic agnostic...OK stop!! Any religion that sees faith as its justification is scared of revealing something - often how hollow it is. The esoteric practices that have come down to us through vehicles such as buddhism reveal that experience is everything and faith is a low-level emotional state. The cumulative reporting of such experiences is essentially a science of self-knowledge. Rationality and experience are the best we have to create a close-to-accurate picture of the universe.
When I studied epistemology (which was surprisingly boring) religion never came up. When teaching epistemology and writing about it (for the most part) it's just a given that you either don't have faith or you're suspending your faith. Or perhaps it is compatible with faith: having faith precludes the need to know something, but it doesn't mean that you can't know things.
Let me see if i can explain this better: In epistemology they teach that in order to have knowledge of something you need true belief and justification (as a minimum). The case studies they use are things like how do you know something is a fake when it looks identical to the things around it (they're expressed more elegantly than this, i can find you actual examples if you're interested.) Faith in God or anything else wouldnt give you the answer to this, you could believe in God and still want to know the answers to these questions.
I don't know if any of this is interesting or useful, but since i know a bit about epistemology I thought I'd try and impart some ... err ... 'knowledge'
Is interesting what Richarde said, their is currently a body of work called A Language to Map Consciousness, which will continue to be a work in progress for as long as it takes. It is a culmination of hundreds and hundreds of hours of mapping esoteric experiences. It is a scientific body of work on areas that are currently faith based. It is primarily because of this body of work and the ability to experience that faith is just that which is currently unknown or without language.
RychardeManne, Jewels - Interesting points. I'm certainly not saying that the inner experiences that people feel are not real. I just think that they cannot be a reliable way to guage our reality. Those experience could possibly be explained by psychology and I think some of them have. However, I cannot say for sure what those experiences are or if the one experiencing them is properly interpreting their experience. I just know that so many different conclusions have been reached by the various faithful on what those experiences are. On the other hand, the rational methods of guaging our reality don't disagree, at least not in the most general sense, on the nature of our reality as far as it has been able to reveal it. Rational methods are more reliable, period.
The main point of this article was to make the point that faith (believing without evidence)is irrational and that reason(only believing that which has been established true by objective empirical methods) is the only consistently reliable way to examine our reality.
Thanks for reading.
jenblacksheep - I probably should have consulted you on a few points before writing this article since you are knowledgable in the area of philosophy. You can probably easily see that this article was written by a layperson and I probably got a few things wrong in the article, but I gave it my best shot. Scholarly works on this subject can be difficult to examine without the aid of professor. The terminology is sometimes too obscure for my limited intellect to comprehend. Next time I decide to write another article dealing with philosophy I will be sure to consult you, that is, if you don't mind.
Thanks for reading.
To be honest a lot of the essays and articles that I read on my course went right over my head and I constantly had to go back over what I'd read, look things up and ask questions about what I was reading. If it is a topic that you find interesting then you should pursue with readings despite worries over the terminology, don't be put off by it. A lot of my professors were worse than useless but I still managed. You just have to know how to read scholarly texts which only comes with practise.
The great thing about philosophy is that anyone can do it and it's very difficult to be wrong. There's nothing incorrect about your article and I hope I didnt give the impression that I thought there was. I just find it curious that when I was taught (not just in epistemology), religion was pushed entirely to the side. I think they ignore it completely because it is so easy to get side tracked by debates like the one you have discussed rather than focusing on the key points of a given topic (like what it is for you to 'know' something).
Yes, of course, you can ask me anything you like. I am only too happy to help. Would be good if I could put my degree to some use! I am going away for a month next week, so if you message me during that time it might be a while before I can reply, it's not that im ignoring you!
Jenblacksheep - I wonder, in your epistemology course did Karl Popper feature much? It bothers me that his work isn't more widely known. It deserves to be.
I recognise the name, I must have read an article by him, but I'm not sure it was in Epistemology
...
I just consulted my extremely large Epistemology textbook and there is nothing written by him, so it wouldn't have been in reference to Epistemology that I read something by him.
OK thanks. That reinforces my impression that he is still being under-represented in the academic syllabus. Pity!
Thanks jennblacksheep. It is good to know that I have someone to turn to for any philosophical questions I may have if the need arises.
Paraglider, wasn't Karl Popper somewhat of a reformer? I seem to remember reading a hub written by you about how Popper proposed that falsification be included as one of the principles of the scientific method.
Wow, I need to forward your hub to my argument-buddy. This guy is so close to leaving his faith (Mormonism), but he is so hung up on his personal experiences while doing missionary work and just can't let go.
He's a great thinker and skeptic, but his beliefs have been embedded in him and his family for so long that leaving them seems nearly impossible.
Thanks for the hub.
tuuky, your friend's situation sounds a lot like the one I was in a few years ago. In my case, I just decided that I was going to examine my beliefs in an unbiased light and start thinking for myself instead of letting others tell me what I should believe. My beliefs couldn't withstand critical examination; my faith fell like a house of cards. Thanks for reading.
Yes man .. even those who claim to be rationalist believe ..or have faith , I believe faith is based on fear . They all secretly believe in god although it contradicts their rationale and reason .. Just so that they would nt incur his wrath . People can simply not accept the fact .. that is about reality . You sound simliar to Alber Camus and Absurdism ? what is your view on Absurdism !
Myriad - There probably isn't an objective meaning to our existence. We just have to do the best we can to make our finite existence as pleasant as possible while we are alive. This doesn't include indulging in decadent and selfish behavior as religious people often assume would be the case without meaning in life. I think building a cooperative society where conflict has been eliminated and everyone's needs are provided for should be our number one goal. I may not believe in life after death, but I do believe in life in the here and now. I want it to be the best life possible not just for myself, but for everyone.
David, thanks for restoring my faith...no, not in JC & the spook, but in the fact that there is hope for mankind yet! If I pryed, I would that more people finally realize that instiitutions of power have been indoctronating generations with self serving BS! I'd really appreciate your input on my blog- gullibility is hereditary- since my last blog was hijacked by the nuts, i'd like to get a thinking person to post before they do.
Lee, thanks for reading and commenting. I'll be happy to check out your hub and add my two cents.
Most welcome, and thanks.
Now regarding the topic at hand, without faith we would not have anything at all. Faith though should not be the exclusive realm of some cryptic deity though. Faith or confidence in your abilities for instance. I can hardly imagine that anybody who ever won the Nobel prize did so purely because of their religious doctrine, maybe some mistake the inspiration coming from their own brilliance to be that of a higher power... anyone who ever really got into something they were good at and enjoyed knows the rush of a job well done. Some may then interpret their talent to be a gift from above, especially if they were beaten into being humble by their peers... but history rarely refers to "god's work on relativity through his tool Einstein". Of course, now having been 'branded' by the religious nuts on my own blogs we know that that old devil can also inspire rock music for example, but I am having quite a bit of trouble with that concept too, must be because I have not found Jesus... and I had no idea he was even missing!
Lee, in my opinion, there is a big difference between the type of faith we place in our fellow human beings, and the type of faith that tells us to believe in the impossible without evidence. I'm sure you would agree. Like Paraglider (the first poster) said, there is sometimes a blurring between faith and trust. I get tired of hearing believers make ridiculous analogies by comparing everyday activities with their religious beliefs and claiming that they both take the same kind of faith. Recently, I have become somewhat disenchanted with the notion of trying to talk sense to those types of people. Like one of my favorite freethinkers, Thomas Paine, was quoted as saying: "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
DB, joining you in the disenchanted category mate. I fear our species is the only one with reverce evolution, pining away for the days in the desert. One can only hope that some people's stupididy will not destroy us all.
Have you read the Afterlife Experiments by Gary Schwartz?
He is a professor of psychology, psychiatry, neurology at the U. of Arizona (formerly at Yale). He is director of a research program conducting psychological experiments on professed psychic mediums. His research appears to provide empirical evidence of the survival of consciousness after death. I have a master's in psychology with emphasis in experimental method, and his methodology seems sound to me.
I believe you alluded to so-called out of body experiences of people who have near-death experiences. I heard about a new research study being implemented in a hospital by a physician, a cardiologist, I think, on this issue. Random objects will be placed on a ledge atop a light fixture directly above each patient's bed. Patients cannot see the object & do not know that anything is there. Any patient who reports having an out of body experience while in the cardiac unit will be asked to describe the room in as much detail as possible as they saw it at the time of the OBE.
If a patient identifies the object on the ledge in their description, it will be considered evidence of an OBF.
Your thoughts?
i scribble - I haven't read The Afterlife Experiments. Prof. Schwartz's research may be sound, but time will tell if his experiments will be confirmed by other researchers.
As for OBE's, I think it is an interesting idea to test for such a phenomenon. I personally doubt that consciousness survives the death of our brains. I see no reason to think that cognition can take place without a physical medium in which to do so. However, if such a phenomenon is confirmed by scientific research, I will change my tune.
Thanks for the comment.
David, your reasoning is sound and your writing is interesting to read, but I'm wondering why you don't put your toes in the water and have a go at some of the practices available so you can have your own experiences. It's absolutely useless and continually circular to have discussions based on other peoples knowledge, theorizing is entertaining until it gets boring. I perhaps should do a hub on this exact subject. You can see for yourself, have these experiences, physically with your senses. No hocus pokus voodoo either.
Jewels - I humbly accept the rebuke, LOL! I have actually considered trying some Buddhist meditation. I may have a go at it one of these days.
One of my favorite atheist/rationalist authors, Sam Harris, is a practicing Buddhist. He claims that meditation is a great way to center oneself. However, he doesn't believe anything metaphysical is at work during meditation. Besides being an author, he is also a neuroscientist who is currently conducting research on how the brain processes belief.
Thanks for the comment.
Glad I didn't sound too 'critical', I checked on your profile, it sort of gave permission! :D My own teacher comes from a science background and am so glad he does. Show your friend my hub on Consciousness Thoughts and the Brain. Fascinating realizations that the brain is an organ that acts more like a receptor than that which accepts belief. (I'm not selling my writing.) But it was through meditation and practices that I was able to feel - yes feel this. Lucky or not, I can physically feel things that are not seen. Like the third eye tunnel for example is a tactile sensation for me. So if that's classed as metaphysical, then I'm having metaphysical experiences. They are not that hard. Just have to be a bit disciplined and get that darn critical mind out of the way for a time. I like rationalists, and I find the term God irrelevant. But, and the but is that the feelings or sensations that are available to feel are beyond what humans usually dish out. Out of this world is a good term! :D
Has Sam Harris got a website or any writings on his findings so far? I like to see what other people are doing in this field. and there's a study going on at Oxford or Cambridge about nature v nurture in regard to belief. Not sure how that's coming along either. I'm not convinced they are going to come up with anything conclusive to be honest.
The studies on meditation and it's effects on the brain show good reasons to meditate. But am not sure there are ways to scientifically prove what is a non physical experience. That's the glitch, non physical experiences don't have dimension so not easy to pick up with physical instruments. But having your own, and more than once helps to convince yourself. Of course no point trying to convince someone else unless they also have them. Too many people have had them, or are having them to dismiss them. Mind you, when it comes to the religious forum experience doesn't come into the arguments so it's a different language we are talking here. Spouting scriptures and actually being spiritual are two different things, as we know!
Jewels - Here is the link to Sam Harris' website if you wanted to check it out http://www.samharris.org/. There is an interesting article on there about a recent study that was done to determine how the brain processes belief.
I may give meditation a try. You make it sound very intriguing. Any websites or books you can recommend on the subject?
Sure, go to my hub (no I'm not advertising) Third Eye Meditation. At the bottom there is a link to a free pdf download (not free for too much longer, he's getting it reprinted and out on the shelves soon), plus a 4 CD guided meditation Portal to Inner Worlds plus lectures - this is not expensive. Yell if you have questions on either of them.
I had a read of Sam Harris's page. Glad he has a bit of both sides. I'll be interested to see what comes up under the heading "Brain Regions" and the effects of faith on it. But there can be people who have faith who don't do meditation or reflective or contemplative work, so best not include the EC's in the study. This subject is a massive one and so many angles to come at it from. For those who are doing long term spiritual practices, these are the ones who can use rational thinking with experience and have allot of knowledge to pass. I see you are into philosophy. One thing to remember with knowledge, in the ancient days the ability to know came through experiences which were rationally explainable. We seem to have evolved into a non feeling species and this ability is lost on the masses. But it can be uncovered.
Jewels - I will check those things out. Thanks.
Paraglider says:
4 months ago
Nothing to disagree with there! I think there is sometimes a blurring between faith and trust. People make rather silly arguments like 'you must have faith in the driver or you'd never step on a bus'. But that is trust, not faith, and based on accident statistics and knowing the guy has been trained. I wouldn't step on a bus driven by a real chimpanzee, far less an invisible one. Faith is irrational trust. Good hub :)