The Partnership Between Faith and Reason

Oftentimes I have heard faith as being understood as “Believing things without a shred of evidence”, or, “throwing reason out the window”…. Fair enough, if one is a fideist, working on blind faith. With this in mind though, I contend that it is a grave mistake, indeed a caricature, to represent all faith as having this non- intellectual quality. By contrast, in Catholicism at least, faith and reason are partners. As the recent Pope Benedict XVI put it, faith and reason serve like two wings, which together take us towards truth. This essay will present the case to support this claim.

The best way to show how faith and reason are in no ways in conflict is to present some examples in everyday life which illustrate the concept, before moving on to show how Catholicism in particular does not fit into the fideist, “faith alone” bracket. One rather funny case which serves as an example was the exchange between mathematician John Lennox and biologist Richard Dawkins, when they discussed questions of faith. To paraphrase Dawkins, he stated that “You wouldn’t need to have faith if there were any evidence”. Lennox replied: “You have faith that your wife loves you Mr. Dawkins, is there any evidence for that?” The wife case – an example of faith and reason not being in conflict, but reason grounding that faith. In this case, one can see all kinds of evidence to make it seem reasonable to suggest somebody loves you – always kind to you, patient with you even on a grumpy day, the daily kiss, moving countries for you etc. But, with this in mind, one cannot know for absolute certain – as one cannot know the heart. But, with that in mind, that does not make it unreasonable to believe that the person loves you. In this way, in this example, reason is what grounds the faith. If the evidence were to suggest lack of love – not returning calls, staring into space when with you, flirting with every other person in sight, then it would be unreasonable, indeed downright folly to have any sort of faith that the other person loves. . In this way, in this example, reason is what grounds the faith.  Here is one case study. Another case will further illuminate the idea that faith and reason do not necessarily contradict each other.

Now, let us take the example of going on a voyage. Before one travels, one must have a reasonable faith that the ship will be able to make the trip without sinking. One cannot know for absolute sure that the ship won’t sink – hence there is an element of trust involved. But, reason is what grounds the faith. In this case, one assesses the evidence, to then make a judgment which has an element of faith involved…. Are there any holes in the deck? Is the engine working? Is the captain sober? Is the ship strong enough to make its way through the Northwest Passage? If the evidence seems to suggest yes, then one can put ones faith in the reliability of the ship, and so set sail. In this way, there is an element of faith involved, but it is faith anchored in reason. In this way, it is a “Trust in things not seen”, in this case, that she ship will survive the voyage. It is indeed faith. But it is by no means the throw your brain out the window, believe without evidence sort of faith that some militant atheists like to caricature faith as.  This serves as a second example of how faith and reason do not necessarily contradict.

A third and final example of faith being trust in things unseen, while supported by reason, is the case of quantum mechanics in physics. This really captures the aspect of mystery which faith can lead to – even when supported by reason. Physicists, using reason and looking carefully at experimental and mathematical evidence, came to some shocking conclusions as to the nature of matter at the atomic and sub atomic level – a strange world where matter can be waves and waves can be matter, matter can be in many places at once, and this matter-energy duality can even interfere with itself. The results of quantum mechanics are very strange and unusual, to put it very mildly. But, scientists accept quantum mechanics with faith, due to trusting the reason that they applied to even come up with this way of understanding the nature of reality on the micro scale – even if the results of this are confusing, seemingly absurd. As Richard Feynman so aptly put it “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”. In this way, reason underpins faith, which can take one to a level over and above reason. Not for lack of reason. But more lack of understanding for the human mind.

With part one of this short piece finished, giving life to some real examples of faith and reason working together, reason grounding faith, part two will defend the case that Catholicism at least is not in any ways blind faith. I confess, this will seem fairly weak. This is because, to really make the case for the faith in all its subtlety, answering possible objections, that would take a book in itself – probably multiple books.

What makes Catholicism different to other world religions is that it is centred not so much on a philosophy or a set of ideas, but on a person – Jesus, called The Christ. As Professor John Dixon of Maquarie University put it, Christianity bases itself on precise historical claims, claims that can be checked. For centuries, the faith has been one for scrutiny, ready for anybody to “take a swing”. The faith makes a seemingly absurd claim – that God became one of us, lived among us, died to redeem us of our sins, and to validate his claims to divinity, rose from the dead. Take Jesus out of the picture, and Christianity does not exist. St Paul put it very well, in 1 Cor 15:14, when he said “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also in vain”. The faith bases itself on the life and actions of a person. Hence, the evidence to ground a reasonable faith, comes from history. I want to make a very brief summary of why I think it reasonable to put ones faith in Jesus. He claimed that he was God incarnate. The key event that I argue validates this seemingly absurd claim at first glance is that of the resurrection, and linked to that, the behaviour of the Apostles before and after the Resurrection.  If this indeed occurred, then it at least is reasonable to trust Jesus as far more than simply a wise teacher – and so this opens up a whole world of other aspects of faith, which again can be at least fairly deduced. That is where theology comes in.

Firs thing to note: Jesus indeed was dead, so the idea that the disciples just happened to think he was gloriously resurrected due to him surviving the cross just is not credible. The evidence for this can be seen in John’s Gospel, which records he being stabbed in the side, and blood and water gushing out. This, firstly, would have killed him. But the blood and water serves as secondary circumstantial evidence. Death by crucifixion is caused by asphyxiation. As this process happens, and the lungs collapse, water gathers at the bottom of the lungs. So, the blood and water described fits the medical state of affairs of a man killed by crucifixion. In short? He was indeed dead. But that alone does not in any way prove he was resurrected.

So, we have established that Jesus indeed did die on the cross. So the swoon theory is thus not credible. Some have claimed that the disciples stole the body. But, the question is of motives: why would they do that? And why would they then go around preaching that their dead master has come back to life and is Lord? A likely story…. Even so, the evidence suggests strongly against this theory. The Gospels record the Apostles as being deeply upset, fearful, indeed crushed when Jesus was killed on the cross. With this in mind, it thus seems highly unlikely that they would have any reason to possibly be preaching that Jesus was alive…. They, as any normal people would, thought him to be dead, and so, their hope had died with him.

Some have postulated that the Apostles were simply hallucinating when they claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. This is unlikely to be the case for a couple of reasons. Number one, hallucinations are private experiences. People do not have the same hallucinations, much less at the same time. Even more effective as evidence, is the way the Apostles reacted to Jesus’ death – they were crushed, deeply upset. This is not likely to be the state of someone expecting resurrection, or being in a state of wishful thinking. Indeed, when the women came to see the Apostles, shocked and amazed at the resurrection, the Apostles downplayed their words as hysteria. In short, the circumstances suggest that nobody, especially the Apostles, were expecting any sort of supernatural resurrection. Instead, as any normal person would on any normal day (or in this case, tragic set of days), they expected what is normal: the dead stay dead.

But, with this in mind, the Apostles transformed in their outlook after the resurrection… Especially after Pentecost, they became radical, inflamed with passion, unafraid of announcing the Good News – that Jesus is Lord, that he rose from the dead. St Peter, the first Pope, gave a fiery speech, preaching this very message - which ended up converting about 3000 people. There was no political or social gain to be attained by such actions. Indeed they were in time thrown out of the synagogue , and persecuted by Jews and Romans alike – Saul of Tarsus, later to be called Paul, being one example of the killers of the Christians. These people were in a position to know for sure whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. It is extremely unlikely that people would knowingly and willingly die for something they know for sure to be untrue. Hence, I think the circumstantial evidence suggests that something amazing actually did happen that Easter, approximately 2000 years ago. The best explanation of the facts is that Jesus indeed did rise from the dead, and he is who he claims he is. If this is so, then it is also reasonable to have faith in the other aspects of Christianity. If Jesus is indeed Lord, then faith in him is indeed reasonable. And that, in very short, is why I am a Christian.

This is a very short, very abridged summary of the reasons for my faith. There are much more aspects that need to be covered, much more objections. But, that will take an entire book. The purpose of this paper is to show why faith is not necessarily irrational – indeed, reason grounds faith, and then give a quick summary as to why faith is Jesus as a Christian is also supported by reason. As demonstrated, faith is by no means believing without a single shred of evidence. Rather, faith, at least in the Catholic Christian sense, is trusting where the evidence takes you, even if the results of this are out of this world and seemingly crazy at first glance. Faith, in this sense, is supported by reason. But reason alone is not enough, in the same way that faith alone is not enough. The heart and the will must take that step in trusting – and so, living the life of faith. Faith with reason – that is a motto I live by.

Aaron Carlin, October 2014