Faith and Reason

Philosophers and theologians of all times have focused on this provoking theme, fides et ratio (faith and reason). Much ink and paper were consumed (wasted, some say) with essays and discussions. For theologians, faith is a virtue; for many philosophers, it is a religious belief without any logical foundation. As for reason, both agree that it is a faculty that allows us to reason.

In general, faith is usually associated with fatalism, mysticism, religiosity and theism; reason is subordinated to pragmatism, determinism, science and atheism.

Parallel to these positions, it is also thought that the individual who relies on faith is mental lazy; wants others to think for him or expects things to happen with divine help. Faith, from this point of view, would be a kind of crutch for mental indolents, or still, it results from beliefs or superstitions (darkness). On the other hand reason would have to do with the search for knowledge (light).

We have no intentions of delving deeper into these details. The objective of this essay is to take to our readers some considerations, inviting them to reflect on them.

Considering the binomial faith-reason, one may think that one is the negation of the other, which cannot coexist in a mind without resulting in dangerous concessions, from the point of view of Logic.

Perhaps the most celebrated theological efforts of attempts to find a conciliation between faith and reason came from Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola. The former argued that since God was the author of human nature, there could be no conflict between them. The latter, more pragmatic, advised to believe and pray, but to act as if God did not interfere in our acts.

On the trail of the metaphysical considerations of these theologians, let us ask ourselves: Faith and reason, does it really make sense to say that one is the negation of the other? To try to find an answer, let's start with some considerations.

Imagine an object. It may be moving or resting. These two conditions deny each other. The object cannot be moving and stopped at the same time (we are leaving aside relativistic considerations). Another situation: In the same scale of comparison (a thermometer, for example), an object cannot be hot and cold at the same time. In these two cases we have situations that are mutually exclusive. Likewise, without major problems, we accept that religious beliefs and atheism are conflicting positions.

Why are these movement-rest, hot-cold, believer-atheist situations quietly acceptable as conditions that can mutually negate each other? Let's look for the explanation.

Will there be something in common between the situations that were confronted? Why do we feel at ease when we compare movement with rest, cold with hot, believing with atheist? The answer is simple: they are comparisons involving concepts of the same nature. We would not feel so comfortable if someone told us that a thick book cannot contain quality text. In this case, what this person would be trying to foist on us is the idea that the thickness of a book and the quality of its content are qualities that nullify each other. We do not accept that statement simply because the thickness of a book and the content of a text are concepts of a diverse nature. They cannot therefore be compared.

We now come to our fundamental question. Faith and reason are concepts of the same nature? No, as we shall see.

Faith is something that is taught or imposed. Honestly taught by someone convinced that he is doing good; imposed by someone driven by unconfessable interests. Faith is, thus, something that you happen to have throughout life. And it is quantifiable, one can have more or less faith.

Faith being quantifiable, when it reaches levels of fanaticism, can lead to dire consequences as history shows us through horrible pictures produced by the holy wars, inquisitions, genocides, collective suicides and terrorism. History also shows us long black pages written with the blood spilled from crimes committed by fanatics in the name of a merciful God.

We should not confuse faith with conviction. While the former is acquired by someone in his absence, the latter is the fruit of experience and knowledge arising from study and reflection.

Reason, in turn, is an innate psychic attribute. It is neither taught nor imposed. Either it is present, as in the human being, or it is not, as in irrational animals. Nor is it quantifiable. You can be more or less right, but, no one has more or less reason than someone else, (although often, in colloquial language, we say that so-and-so had more reason than somebody else). What can be quantified is the ability to use reason more or less correctly.

We see, then, that faith is an attitude, whereas reason is an attribute. They are concepts of a different nature. For this simple reason it makes no sense to say that one is the negation of the other.

We have seen that the origin of faith is when we are told that we must have it or in the impositions that have been instilled in us. Can we also discover the genesis of reason? Where did it come from?

Being reason a psychic attribute, it can only have been the result of a natural process, regardless of beliefs or convictions. If the body and behavior of an animal have the attributes and characteristics they present, according to evolutionary theories this happens due to the need to adapt to the environment to achieve survival. In the same way, psychic attributes - reason, intelligence, etc. - are also the result of evolutionary processes, apparently not yet appropriately studied, but emphasized in the Christian rationalist doctrine.

Why is reason an attribute conquered by evolutionary processes? Because, as with physical attributes, it is a weapon of defense. From it results the power of reasoning. So to speak, it allow us to separate right from wrong, good from bad. It is, therefore, the resource that leads to greater mental independence, more freedom of thought and action, more learning conditions. Valdir Aguilera Philosophers and theologians of all times have focused on this provoking theme, fides et ratio (faith and reason). Much ink and paper were consumed (wasted, some say) with essays and discussions. For theologians, faith is a virtue; for many philosophers, it is a religious belief without any logical foundation. As for reason, both agree that it is a faculty that allows us to reason.

In general, faith is usually associated with fatalism, mysticism, religiosity and theism; reason is subordinated to pragmatism, determinism, science and atheism.

Parallel to these positions, it is also thought that the individual who relies on faith is mental lazy; wants others to think for him or expects things to happen with divine help. Faith, from this point of view, would be a kind of crutch for mental indolents, or still, it results from beliefs or superstitions (darkness). On the other hand reason would have to do with the search for knowledge (light).

We have no intentions of delving deeper into these details. The objective of this essay is to take to our readers some considerations, inviting them to reflect on them.

Considering the binomial faith-reason, one may think that one is the negation of the other, which cannot coexist in a mind without resulting in dangerous concessions, from the point of view of Logic.

Perhaps the most celebrated theological efforts of attempts to find a conciliation between faith and reason came from Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola. The former argued that since God was the author of human nature, there could be no conflict between them. The latter, more pragmatic, advised to believe and pray, but to act as if God did not interfere in our acts.

On the trail of the metaphysical considerations of these theologians, let us ask ourselves: Faith and reason, does it really make sense to say that one is the negation of the other? To try to find an answer, let's start with some considerations.

Imagine an object. It may be moving or resting. These two conditions deny each other. The object cannot be moving and stopped at the same time (we are leaving aside relativistic considerations). Another situation: In the same scale of comparison (a thermometer, for example), an object cannot be hot and cold at the same time. In these two cases we have situations that are mutually exclusive. Likewise, without major problems, we accept that religious beliefs and atheism are conflicting positions.

Why are these movement-rest, hot-cold, believer-atheist situations quietly acceptable as conditions that can mutually negate each other? Let's look for the explanation.

Will there be something in common between the situations that were confronted? Why do we feel at ease when we compare movement with rest, cold with hot, believing with atheist? The answer is simple: they are comparisons involving concepts of the same nature. We would not feel so comfortable if someone told us that a thick book cannot contain quality text. In this case, what this person would be trying to foist on us is the idea that the thickness of a book and the quality of its content are qualities that nullify each other. We do not accept that statement simply because the thickness of a book and the content of a text are concepts of a diverse nature. They cannot therefore be compared.

We now come to our fundamental question. Faith and reason are concepts of the same nature? No, as we shall see.

Faith is something that is taught or imposed. Honestly taught by someone convinced that he is doing good; imposed by someone driven by unconfessable interests. Faith is, thus, something that you happen to have throughout life. And it is quantifiable, one can have more or less faith.

Faith being quantifiable, when it reaches levels of fanaticism, can lead to dire consequences as history shows us through horrible pictures produced by the holy wars, inquisitions, genocides, collective suicides and terrorism. History also shows us long black pages written with the blood spilled from crimes committed by fanatics in the name of a merciful God.

We should not confuse faith with conviction. While the former is acquired by someone in his absence, the latter is the fruit of experience and knowledge arising from study and reflection.

Reason, in turn, is an innate psychic attribute. It is neither taught nor imposed. Either it is present, as in the human being, or it is not, as in irrational animals. Nor is it quantifiable. You can be more or less right, but, no one has more or less reason than someone else, (although often, in colloquial language, we say that so-and-so had more reason than somebody else). What can be quantified is the ability to use reason more or less correctly.

We see, then, that faith is an attitude, whereas reason is an attribute. They are concepts of a different nature. For this simple reason it makes no sense to say that one is the negation of the other.

We have seen that the origin of faith is when we are told that we must have it or in the impositions that have been instilled in us. Can we also discover the genesis of reason? Where did it come from?

Being reason a psychic attribute, it can only have been the result of a natural process, regardless of beliefs or convictions. If the body and behavior of an animal have the attributes and characteristics they present, according to evolutionary theories this happens due to the need to adapt to the environment to achieve survival. In the same way, psychic attributes - reason, intelligence, etc. - are also the result of evolutionary processes, apparently not yet appropriately studied, but emphasized in the Christian rationalist doctrine.

Why is reason an attribute conquered by evolutionary processes? Because, as with physical attributes, it is a weapon of defense. From it results the power of reasoning. So to speak, it allow us to separate right from wrong, good from bad. It is, therefore, the resource that leads to greater mental independence, more freedom of thought and action, more learning conditions.

Copyright©2008 valdiraguilera.net. All Rights Reserved