Reason and Faith

This post was inspired by two YouTube videos. The first was an interjection into a discussion of Myers-Briggs personality types in which a heartfelt man was very soberly questioning how a Intuitive Thinking personality type (in other words, one who strongly values rationality and intellectual reason as the means of decision-making) could believe religious tenants without proof.



I hope I respond with the same heartfelt honesty and compassion as the personality type hostess. In summary, she articulated that religious-based reasoning was just as logical as science-based reasoning or any other "factor X" that one might use as one's basis of reasoning.



I feel a responsibility to respond because I am a Intuitive Thinking type personality (INTP, to be specific) and also a deep, heartfelt believer when it comes to religion. When he says, "I do not understand how you can push the 'believe' button when there are no facts to back it up." it sounds very much like he is addressing me specifically.

There is a distinction that needs to be made right off the bat: there is a difference between logic and empiricism. Logic dependably leads from conclusions that are accepted ("givens" formally) to conclusions that are at least as true as the givens. If your givens are false, your conclusions can only be true by coincidence despite the best logic. Empiricism is the belief that anything not physically demonstrated true should be considered false. Logic alone does not dispute faith, but logic plus empiricism largely does.

Empiricism is a philosophy from which logic can begin. It is a possible "factor X", to borrow barcode9588's term. Religious faith is another. Agnostics often argue that empiricism and Christian faith both make unprovable claims, and thus it is irrational to trust conclusions derived from either.

Consider this: there is a planet orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter called Ceres. (Technically it's designated a dwarf planet, like Pluto.) It has existed at least as long as mankind has looked at the sky, but it was not identified until long after man invented telescope (1801, specifically). If someone had declared there to be more planets than were yet known in 1700 he would be just as right as a man claiming so today. But he would have no empirical proof. There is a hypothetical example of faith justified and, thus, an example of the fallibility of empiricism.

But I think your deeper question is "What reasonable way is there to choose the best philosophical basis for me to adopt?" I don't think any method is perfect and one-size-fits-all, but there are some things you may try.

Benjamin Franklin considered utility to determine which philosophy he should follow. In his young adulthood, he chose an atheistic, hedonistic philosophy of his own design. After betraying a friend over a girl, he was stricken with guilt over what he had done and blamed his atheism and hedonism. Thereafter he professed belief in God and tried to live by Biblical virtues (with limited success). You need not necessarily come to the same conclusion, but you might consider using the same means: which way of life makes you a happier person and best frees you from regrets? This could be termed the "lifestyle experiment."

In the 1830s, a young farm boy had a similar religious uncertainty on his mind read these words in the Bible: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." (KJV James 1:5-6) He was convinced that God would answer his question if he both asked and fully believed it possible the answer could come. He asked and, so his story says, God answered his question in person. That is a unique and dramatic example, but testimonies of the general premise of tangible answers to a prayer are numerous and widespread. It may be considered an empirical experiment, though it is one that provides the answer to you alone. If there is no answer, only you can know for certain that you were open to the possibility at the time. If there is an answer, only you can know for certain that the touch you felt was real. This could be termed the "prayer experiment."

Either of these experiments are rational, arguably empirical ways to have faith (if the results support the faith). But, as I said, I assume the responsibility to answer your question personally.

I believe in God and the Bible not because morality and rationality dictate their truth but because they promote rationality and thereby promote morality. The internal logic of the Bible is such that it invites critical thinking, demands serious study for comprehension, and encourages the investigations of the motives of man and God. The Bible is a grand treatise against easy answers and bumper sticker philosophies. For every obviously moral commandment ("thou shalt not kill") there are exceptions and counter-arguments (David kills Goliath) which, in context, often seem moral. And a few (God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac) which do not. The intellectual action of trying to determine right from wrong given such a set of examples is an exercise in the same moral thinking that has been so necessary in helping moral philosophy keep pace with physical philosophy. If one were standing outside of the world looking down, watching humanity struggle toward civilization and morality, I can think of no action that would do more to persuade them to attain the psychological tools they need than to provide them with something very much like the Bible.

To me, at least, that logic fits enough to support sufficient faith to pray in earnest and to try to live by the morality I derive from the scriptures. These things, little by little, have built themselves into a rational basis for faith in something I cannot prove to you but which I know beyond my capability of doubt is true.

I see no failure of logic in saying "God lovingly watches over us." Nor do I require you to agree with me without the evidences I have known. I respect both logic and faith and cannot tell you whether, when, or which to choose between them.

I hope this testimony helps you in your search for comforting rational truth. I assure you, in the name of my savior Jesus Christ, that these things are as true as I know how to express. Or, as they would phrase it in church, Amen.