During a conversation with a fellow classmate during my time as an undergraduate philosophy student I was challenged with the hyperbolic claim that, “Faith is nothing more than pure irrationality”. Being a theist, the answer that immediately came to mind was, “No,” but then came the ultimate philosophical (and unanswerable) question, “Why?”
I read in many apologetic books how Christian beliefs are rational and I see nothing wrong with this approach but I have yet to see someone approach Christianity from the irrational side of the discussion. “Christian beliefs are rational” and “Christian beliefs are not irrational” are two ways of saying the same thing, but I believe the implications of these statements are different because a person may have justified false beliefs and yet we would not call them irrational for we would say that given the evidence they have in conjunction with their background beliefs they were justified in believing something even though it was false. So, someone can have false religious beliefs but not be irrational (depending upon which account of rationality one is willing to accept of course).
I do not believe that faith is irrational and I believe that there really is no ‘significant’ problem when it comes to Christian faith and rationality but just because I believe there are no problems means nothing in the grand scheme of philosophy (or the world for that matter). But I do not believe it to be the case that if someone has faith, particularly religious faith, does not automatically entail they are irrational; this is not to say that there are not irrational Christians for I believe they do exist, but the statement that I concerned with is the universal generalization, “All Christians are irrational,” or in logical symbolism, (x) (Cx → Ix). This is empirically difficult to prove (in my opinion even impossible not the mention the fact is commits the fallacy of making a hasty generalization) but what is more important is that if majority of Christians are not irrational, given the modern philosophical construct of what constitutes rational behavior and rational beliefs, then an account must be given on why this is so and this is my main intention in this work.
The main point that I wish to “drive home” in this work is the fact that everyone has faith; faith is not something only isolated to Christianity and/or religion and consequently the claim that having faith automatically entails irrationality is utterly false for this leads to other absurdities. Are we to call St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Anselm of Canterbury, C.S. Lewis, and many of the other great theologians and Christian philosophers (which is not an oxymoron) throughout the ages irrational? I am not denying that some theologians have been irrational throughout the ages because whenever humans are involved there is always a possibility of irrationality sneaking into arguments, thought processes, and actions; however, the point is that being a theologian or a Christian philosopher, or a Christian for that matter, by no means entails that one is irrational nor can that charge be leveled unless the individual making the accusation has sound logical and epistemic grounds for doing so. It is appears absolutely unfounded to label someone irrational simply on the basis that they believe in a God or that they are a Christian. What about great philosophers who themselves are Christians? Are we to able them irrational simply on par because of their Christian beliefs? In the philosophical and scientific communities, there exists a great hubris, a hubris that has shrouded it, and that shroud is atheism, and due to this shroud anyone with religious beliefs are looked down upon as being irrational, unintelligent, ignorant, and the list goes on.
However, the question that I pose is, “Why is being an atheist or agnostic considered to be more rational than being a Christian in our modern philosophical age (or in any age for that matter)?” One reason I think this is the mentality in many intellectual circles can be summed up in one word, “Science.” Science gets propped up as the only universal authority on what people can and cannot believe and religious beliefs, consequently Christian beliefs, are thrown to the curb. The mentality of some in the academic world is, “Science is true; therefore, religions are false.” If science says that something is false then it is false because science as shown it to be so. Some accuse me of making a false analogy here but definitely this seems to be the case of some individuals. The theories and hypotheses of science are usually accepted without a great amount of contestation by many individuals simply because science has said that a certain theory or hypothesis is true.
“Well, individuals who believe that science is the ultimate source of knowledge truth are simply misguided about the role of science.” This was told to me once and while I agree with this statement it is nevertheless the case that there are those who believe that only science is true.
What is true is that there are some who believe that science can never be questioned from the outside, that is, people from the outside of science cannot question what science says is true. People who question science are often labeled as ignorant, ‘backwoods hicks’, and again the list goes on. Within philosophy this is especially true of those who are in the field of the philosophy of science. Philosophers of science (as well as other philosophers) in some cases present themselves as the people who really know what is going on and go around patting people on the heads saying, “You poor ignorant soul, I am here to save you from yourself.” I am not saying that all philosophers of science are this way; in fact, I have had many stimulating conversations with philosophers of sciences. My first experience discussing issues with a philosopher of science was with Dr. Neill Shanks during my undergraduate work at Wichita State University. While he and I had widely divergent views of the world we talked frequently and all of our conversations were great and I enjoyed talking with him. The point is, though, that some philosophers of science (as well as philosophers from other philosophical realms) look down upon individuals with religious faith simply because they feel they are ones who really know what is going on in the world and people who have accepted a religion are just too ignorant to know any better.
In our modern society some have bought into this fundamentally flawed and idealized notion of science. This idea is reflected in much of our popular culture today; in science-fiction shows people who are religious are labeled as fanatics, irrational, incapable of rational thought, blind-followers of lies, and 100% subjective, whereas the scientists of these shows are purely rational, completely unbiased, and 100% objective. Both extremes are simply not true. There is stupidity and irrationality on both sides of the aisles.
I am not against science in the sense that it is this ‘monster that should be slain’; I believe science is a good thing and the scientific advances that have been are absolutely wonderful and astonishing; however, I believe that science has been idealized to the point that many intellectuals have become “blinded” to the fact that there are some things in this world science cannot answer and some things science can never prove because there are some things that go beyond science’s reach (heaven forbid). In addition, some have bought into the idea that science is the only epistemologically correct realm of inquiry but I do not believe this to be the case either.
Donald Davidson whom I consider to be in the pantheon of ‘philosophy gods’ (figuratively speaking of course) committed a great amount of time and effort into exploring the realm of rationality during his philosophical career and I believe he made some strides to expand our philosophical knowledge on these issues and it is his arguments found in his collection of essays Problems of Rationality, that these strides were primarily made, but one must also take Davidson as a whole for many of his arguments “bleed” over into other arguments found in other article that he wrote throughout his philosophical career. I do not know if Davidson was a theist or not, a part of me thinks that he was not, but in either case philosophers borrow themes and pieces from other philosophers all the time so I do not see the harm in using Davidsonian philosophy so long as I do not adulterate it or botch what Davidson was arguing.
Primarily I will draw my arguments from philosophers and not from Christian theologians for they dealt primarily with issues within Christianity and do not have much to say about rationality; my goal is to examine Christianity from the “outside looking forward,” to look at Christianity the lens of modern philosophy and utilize modern philosophical arguments as a means to show that Christianity is not some irrational conceptual schema, one that lacks any type of rational merit, but in fact that Christianity is a rational conceptual schema. To those who would object to this project, they are entitled to their objections but I will let them object and I will continue writing.
In addition, I have decided to do something new in this work; I adapted a somewhat Wittgensteinian approach to this philosophical inquiry. In his work, Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein appears to be having a conversation with a skeptic for as Wittgenstein writes there is someone interjecting questions to Wittgenstein’s arguments. Wittgenstein’s approach is a type of dialogue where the reader is carried along with it exploring the philosophical problems as they develop, are examined, accepted or rejected. This style of writing I have adopted for this work, not to the absolute T, but I hope that it will engage you, my reader, and you yourself will feel part of this investigation into faith vs. irrationality.
No comments:
Post a Comment