From: "Elaine Yeadon" <elaine.yeadon@lineone.net>
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: Faith: rational or irrational?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:07:17 +0100
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Faith: rational or irrational?
Should faith, which seems necessarily to involve some element of
uncertainty
? some blindness on the part of the believer ? always be non-rational (or
even irrational) or does it involve some rational calculation?
[Disclaimer: I?m often confused about how to read Kierkegaard. I?m aware
that the following presents just one reading. But it is the idea itself in
which I?m interested, not really the accuracy of the literary
interpretation
? heresy, I know?]
Kierkegaard is famed for arguing that faith defies rationality, for, in
order
to be faith rather than knowledge, the commitment cannot be based on
evidence.
In this sense it is ?blind?. Reacting against the more traditional
rationalist
approach (especially when it was applied to religious belief), he abhorred
the idea that someone could claim to have a faith in God based on evidence
or logic, a notion exemplified by Pascal?s Wager, which reasoned that being
part of a Faith was the safer option. Briefly, the reasoning runs: If you
are wrong and there?s no God or Afterlife, then you haven?t lost much,
whereas
if you are right and God does exist, then you are rewarded greatly rather
than being severely punished as those would be who did not follow him. For
Kierkegaard this was a superficial and selfish way to live based on
scientific
evidence or calculation rather than on character and faith. As a result,
his writings distinguish between objective truths which he sees as the
information
we gain through science, rationality and other worldly observations, and
subjective truths, recognized through passion, conviction and faith.
?the objective way of reflection leads to the objective truth, and while
the subject and his subjectivity become indifferent, the truth also becomes
indifferent, and this indifference is precisely its objective validity; for
all interest, like all decisiveness, is rooted in subjectivity. The way
of objective reflection leads to abstract thought, to mathematics, to
historical
knowledge of different kinds; and always it leads away from the subject,
whose existence or non-existence, and from the objective point of view
quite
rightly, becomes infinitely indifferent.? Concluding Unscientific
Postscript
Specifically on faith he states:
?Faith does not simply result from scientific enquiry; it does not come
directly
at all?Rather it is the case that in this voluminous knowledge, this
certainty
that lurks at the door of faith and threatens to devour it, [the believer]
is in so dangerous a situation that much effort will be needed, in great
fear and trembling, lest he fall victim to the temptation to confuse
knowledge
with faith.? Concluding Unscientific Postscript
However, another important aspect of subjective truth is that it requires
a full commitment. It makes no sense to say ?I believe that pigs can fly,
but I?m probably wrong?, for the element of doubt means that it is not full
belief. Thus for a truth to be fully subjective, there must be no reliance
on objective evidence and no element of doubt.
?if [the believer] had assumed [belief] by virtue of any proof he would
have
been on the verge of giving up his faith.? Concluding Unscientific
Postscript
Herein lies a problem for me. I don?t understand how one can allow for
doubt
in the certainty of the belief without requiring some rationality, by which
the doubt can be dealt with or overcome. I fail to see how the ?blind?
faith
so far discussed is anything but tenacity. The believer, to have real
faith,
must surely recognize that his belief is epistemologically uncertain;
otherwise
it would seem (to him) to be in the same category as the objective truth
which Kierkegaard argues destroys faith. Tenacity lacks the epistemological
value of faith because it takes into account neither the subjective
?passion?
of belief nor the objective justification.
We needn?t only consider religious faith here either. I think that the
debate
can be applied to any epistemologically uncertain or seemingly non-provable
belief. Many people would accept the rational element of faith in a theory
for day-to-day, scientific or otherwise academic beliefs, but not allow a
rational component of religious Faith (capital f). Is this justified? ?
many
people claim to experience God just as clearly as they experience the
material
processes of science. It?s not clear to me that people have less of a
justification
to look for reasons to believe in God than they do to believe scientific
theories.
For the record, I don?t think Pascal?s Wager provides rational reason for
faith ? it?s more of a rational motivation to try to come to faith.
However,
I think it does emphasize the requirement for recognizing uncertainty and
acting upon it rationally.
So, what do you think? Must faith involve rationality? Must it preclude
it?
-Elaine
[I?m eager to avoid the following discussion becoming a theist-bashing
exercise,
so could we focus on the question of whether or not faith should be
rational,
not whether people are correct to believe in God? Thank you :-) ]
___________________________________________________________
Tiscali Broadband from 14.99 with free setup!
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml