Faith and Philosophy

Transcription

- Hi, my name is Greg Ganssle and I am a senior fellow at the Rivendell Institute at Yale University. Today we're going to talk about faith and reason. It's a very popular idea that faith and reason are opposites. That if I hold something by faith, it's not also the case that I have good reasons to hold it. Or, if I am reasoning about something, it's not the case that I have faith. Some of the reason that it's difficult today to relate faith and reason has to do with how we talk about what we believe. We will use sentences such as the following: "I believe that George Washington existed." "I believe that ice cream tastes good." "I believe in recycling." "I believe in God." Notice that the various sentences I used used the word "believe," but we often follow that word either with "believe that," or "believe in." So when I say, "I believe that George Washington existed," I take a sentence, "George Washington existed," and I believe that sentence is true. What I believe in this sense is either true or false. I'm either correct about my belief, or I'm mistaken about my belief. Now when we talk about "believe in," it gets much more complicated. I believe in The Constitution. What does that mean? It does not mean I believe that The Constitution exists, although I do. It must mean something else. It means something like I have confidence in The Constitution. Or I think it's a good thing. Or I trust it. I believe in recycling is even more complicated. It has to mean more than I believe recycling exists. Or I believe it's good to recycle, because I could tell you that I believe it's good to recycle, but if I never recycle myself, you would say I really don’t believe in recycling. To say, "I believe in recycling," is to say that I am committed to a certain practice. It's the practice of recycling. So when we say, "I believe in," it's very complicated. "I believe that," has to do with making certain claims, and those claims are either true or false. Reason has much more to do with "I believe that," claims. This is where we can bring evidence to bear. I believe that George Washington existed. There's lots of evidence for this. Every once in a while, I actually have a dollar bill, and his picture's on the dollar bill. Or I've been to Washington DC, and I've been to The Archives, and I've seen his signature on documents. All of these are bits of evidence that my claim, the claim I believe that George Washington existed, is true. Reason can be brought to bear on "believe that" statements. Now, when someone says, "I believe in God," what does that mean? It does mean I believe that God exists. But it also means something more. For many people, it means not only do I believe the claim that God exists, but somehow God is an important part of my life. I have a commitment to God in some way. And this is a kind of ambiguity. You think of ambiguity meaning the sentence can go in two directions. The sentence, "I believe in God," goes in two directions. I believe that God exists, and somehow, I make God an important part of my life. I have a commitment to God. So let's get back to faith and reason. In the sentence, "I believe in God," which has these two divergent tracks, reason applies mostly to one track. I believe that God exists. In other words, I think it's true that God exists, and it's exactly at that claim that reason applies the most. Is there evidence? Are there reasons to think God exists? Or reasons to think God doesn't? Some of the other videos in this series discuss various reasons to think either God does exist or God doesn't exist. This is the application of reason to the question of God's existence. Now, someone who says, "I believe in God," also may have a trust or a confidence in God. Some people have complained that religious believers' confidence or trust in God goes much farther than what reason can support. So there may be evidence that God exists, but it is nowhere close to bringing certainty. Yet, religious believers seem to have a hundred-percent commitment to God. There is a lack of proportion between the evidence and the level of commitment. This is one of the accusations against religious belief being reasonable. Now, I think we can make some progress on this problem with a couple of illustrations. Suppose you are going to drive from New Haven, Connecticut, to New York City. You get in your car, and you are going to drive down Interstate 95. If you've ever driven down Interstate 95 in Connecticut, you know it's kind of dangerous. When you get into your car, you know that you do not have absolute certainty that you will make it New York without breaking down or without crashing because people break down and crash every day. So your confidence that the claim you will make it to New York is true is less than a hundred percent. But notice, you have to get into the car either 100 percent or zero percent. You commit yourself wholly to the car. Yet you know, that it's less than a hundred-percent certain. Every time you get on an airplane, you know there's a chance the airplane will crash. Now, it's very small chance, but your certainty you will be safe is less than a hundred percent. Yet, you commit yourself a hundred percent to getting on the airplane. There are certain decisions in life that require either 100 percent or zero percent commitment, and these decisions hold or are binding on us even if our reason tells us we have less than a hundred-percent certainty. This is simply the way these things work together. So faith and reason can be related in this way. We can have evidence, perhaps, that God exists, but the question of God's existence is not purely theoretical. There may be something where we commit ourselves to God, and that commitment might require going beyond the degree of evidence. Is it reasonable for us to do so? Probably it depends on how strong our evidence is that God exists. So when faith and reason seem to come in conflict, sometimes it's because reason applies to one part of the question, "Is the claim true or false?" But reason is more indirect with the second question: "Should I commit myself?" Now the final illustration for this point is if you were ever to get married. You would not commit yourself to your spouse simply in proportion to your evidence that he or she would make a good partner. That's very bad relationship advice. Assess, is this a good partner? And then you commit yourself fully. That's the nature of a relationship. That's the nature of getting on an airplane. And that's the nature of what it means to be a believer in God, despite the fact that our evidence might be less than certain.