On Faith and Reason

Over at Uncommon Sense, Rich Nikoley (avowed atheist and dyed-in-the-wool rationalist) was recently involved in a dialog with an avowed deist. When the deist pronounced Rich to be lacking in faith, Rich replied to the effect of "I'm a pure rationalist... faith has no place in my cognitive functioning."

I've given some thought to Rich's point of view and come to the conclusion that there's a flaw in that reasoning. The difference between a deist and a rationalist is not that one willingly accepts certain tenets on faith while the other does not; the difference lies only in which tenets each is willing to accept.

There is little to be gained in examining the rationale of the deist, since his proclivities towards faith are obvious to both himself and the casual observer. More interesting is the list of things that the rationalist (as well as everyone else) must accept on faith.

(1) An Objective Reality

The strict rationalist insists that an objective world outside of and separate from himself exists. This theory that there is a qualitative difference between "imagination" and "reality" offers absolutely no testable hypothesis from which its accuracy can be verified. As such, it is logically equivalent to the theory that this alleged universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

If one is willing to take on faith that an external reality exists, we get to:

(2) Knowledge of an Objective Reality

Each of us has data collection organs (senses, as interfaced to our brains by the central nervous system), as well as a processing center (our brain) to refine that data into concepts. The strict rationalist assumes implicitly that his senses are reporting data that (for the most part) accurately relects the external reality.

Anyone who has see the movie "The Matrix" can posit at least one alternative explantion for the data that arrives at our brain via our sensory mechanisms. In the world of "The Matrix", the data arriving at the citizens' brains is generated artificially by an external machine. In the world suggested by the rationalist, the data arriving at our brains is generated by an objective, natural reality. It's important to note that there is no test that can discern between these two states. Those who propose a "Matrix reality" are in the same boat as those who propose a "natural reality"... neither of them can show evidence nor devise a test that can distinguish one from the other.

The proposition that our senses are reporting a natural reality must be taken on faith.

(3) Deterministic Causality

Part and parcel of the rationalist view of the universe is absolute causality: event C was caused by event B, which itself was caused by event A, et cetera, ad infinitum.

There is no evidence that the universe actually works like this.

There is copious evidence that at least partial causality exists... we see it and rely upon it in our every day lives.

To assume that this partial causality presupposes an absolute, universal causality is a leap of faith. It is the duty of those who make extraordinary claims (i.e., "absolute causality exists") to support those claims via evidence... and the philsophy of pure rationalism has not done so.

Comments

[Rich]

Doug:

Even granting that your senses do not product accurate percepts of reality, arguendo, it's still not an exercise of faith. We're simply going with the best we have and using reason to make our way.

Faith is an explicit subordination of reason. It's an explicit disregard or even rejection of what are considered "facts of reality," arrived at via reason applied to our senses.

[Mr Bob]

Great Post and Blog, found you today through B.E.

I disagree with Doug's assumption that Faith is disregard or even rejection of what are considered "facts of reality,"
Lets say for arguments sake that I believe Jesus Christ is a divine being, a great teacher or even the son of God.
1. We know he actually existed. There is historical (including eyewitness) and archological proof he existed. However, one must take on faith that the "evidence" is good. Some choose not to.
2. Many of those eyewitnesses said he did miracles. You can choose to not believe that, or take "on faith" that the eyewitnesses are telling the truth and some interesting things did happen. There is no rejection of reality, only that "faith is added."
As to the existence of God, there is not enough space here, there are a good number (though the minority to be sure) of scientists from every discipline who add faith to what they see in nature and believe in a creator or designer. They do not disregard known facts. I know several men of higher scientific learning that believe there is a designer. Those who say such things about faith really have no understanding about how scholars, religionists of reason and believing scientists actually reason and add that faith to what they see in science.
I personally believe not only because of some very unexplainable Anecdotal evidence, but also because of archological, scientific and historical facts known to be true (in those disciplines.)

[Mr Bob]

I meant to address Rich, not Doug. Sorry about that.

[Doug Wolf]

Rich,

Perhaps our disagreement comes from our using different definitions of "faith".

The definition I'm using is very simple. Things taken on "faith" are those things I believe to be true even though I cannot test for them or otherwise demonstrate via rational means. Note that anything taken on faith is not allowed to contradict anything I know through rational means.

I believe when you use the word "faith" you are using it in the religious sense of accepting as fact that which rational thought would otherwise reject as either logical contradiction (i.e., "The Invisible Pink Unicorn must be god because it is both invisible and pink!") or a contradiction of demonstrable fact. (i.e., "The earth is 6000 years old because the Bible tells me so!") That's not faith... that's an inability to think in straight lines.

-- DW