Faith and reason are compatible

By Erik Hesla

In the modern era we live in, issues of faith are seldom seen as complementary with reason. Nowadays, faith is often regarded as an unproven, religious conviction that either has little basis in reason or contradicts reason altogether. In this context, reason is usually associated with the "purely rational" pursuits of science. H.L. Mencken encapsulates this modern notion when he writes, "Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."

But is this an accurate definition of faith? I maintain that there ought to be a distinction between faith and blind faith. Faith that is not based on any sort of logical or empirical evidence is blind faith, and it rightly deserves to be cut off from all reasonable intellectual consideration. However, faith that is based on some evidence, but is essentially unproven, is indeed faith, but a faith that is hardly blind. This could even be called reasonable faith.

Undoubtedly, there are those who would contend that I misuse the term faith -- that I purposely blur the lines, so to speak. Such an individual wants to portray all faith as blind. However, I think that such a person is himself or herself guilty of blurring the lines. I maintain the only reason why faith could be misconstrued as "blind" is because it is unproven.

If an individual feels that belief in an unproven statement is "blind," then I suppose faith is, indeed, blind. But, so also is science, which uses induction to theorize in order to predict and explain natural phenomena.

The corpus of science, strictly speaking, is unproven. Yet most people do not think science is operating blindly, but rather reasonably. So, it seems that the distinction between blind and reasonable faith is justified.

But is religious faith reasonable? Modern critics of religion assert that religious faith is less founded than that of science. Yet if one believes in the Aristotelian claim that every effect has a cause, as many scientists do, then there must be an uncaused cause (God) that exists which set everything in motion.

The view that God was the great initiator of all matter seems to be more logically reasonable than the idea that matter either always existed or caused itself.

Many critics want to believe that religion subverts reason with superstitious belief and irrational dogmas. A favorite example of this alleged "subversion" on the part of organized religion is the interaction between Galileo and the Catholic Church.

According to the story as it is usually told, Galileo, a brilliant astronomer, discovered evidence that greatly favored the Copernican (or sun-centered) view of the solar system. This view directly contradicts the traditionally held Ptolemaic view which asserts that the earth is the center of the Solar System. Critics assert that Galileo was silenced because such a view threatened the Catholic faith.

Yet this common view of Galileo and the Catholic Church is flawed. First, the main reason why the Church held the Ptolemaic view is because it was the most scientifically sound. It is a neglected fact that during this period the Church was itself a proponent of science and that the scientists of the time, including Galileo, were Catholics.

Second, the primary reason why Galileo was criticized by the Church was because it was thought that he was asserting the truth of his theory without enough evidence. Even scientists of the time, such as Tycho Brahe and Francis Bacon (considered one of the fathers of the modern scientific method) thought Galileo's evidence unsatisfactory.

Lastly, many Catholics, particularly Jesuits, did agree with the Copernican system even before Galileo's findings were brought to light.

Part of the response taken by the Catholic Church toward Galileo was definitely harsh, even immoral. But rather than show how religious faith subverts reason, the Galileo incident, ironically, illustrates just the opposite; faith and reason are not exclusive, but intertwined.

Moreover, religious faith is itself reasonable, as evidenced by Aristotelian logic. Hence, one ought to think twice the next time someone attempts to show that faith and reason are incompatible.

Erik Hesla is a junior economics and philosophy double major.