Reason and Faith

Reason and faith tends to be significantly more dynamically in tension within theistic religions because it has tended to be a historical conflict. In theistic history there is much said conflict, but a lot of us don’t realize many quite decent theistic philosophers, like Aquinas, al-Kindi or Maimonides, have tended to be overlooked when people appeal to the irrationality of religion. It is clear that there have been many, and there will be many other, men of faith who have tried to speak ‘reasonably’ in regards to their ‘faith’. Because if religious experience was entirely unreasonable, there could not be any sensical expression of said experience. Hence when there are ’supernatural’ or ‘revelatory’ events that form a sort of doctrinal basis for religions, they are expressed such because the realm of the religious can only tread a line between the fantastic and reasonable. An example might be Moses and the burning bush. A burning bush is not only weird, but also because God reveals himself in that burning bush. Yet when Moses speaks to God, despite taking off his shoes and going low as a matter of worship, he retains his mental and rational faculties completely, since he can understand God’s plan for him to save the Israelites from Egypt. These mental/rational faculties enable him to return to Pharaoh and demand that he free the Jews. On the surface this seems like a very common thing for an oppressed leader’s people to do, but it is also in fact a religious expression, because God in the burning bush commanded him to go.

If you want to look at a more trans-historical example (because theistic religions are ‘historical’ in that they claim God acts in history, whilst Buddhism is trans-historical because it transcends human/samsaric history), in the Avatamsaka Sutra the most cosmic and often crazy visions are recorded as a great council of many divine beings being taught by a Buddha or bodhisattva, but the teachings coming from said Buddha/bodhisattva are perennial truths that one needs to understand. Book 39 is a perfect example. The journey of Sudhana is 100% supernatural, no doubt about that. But the mental faculties are heightened to the extent that he attains great insight. This is similar in art and music, where neither are completely rational, yet one’s senses are heightened dramatically, remaining acutely aware of one’s situation. Sudhana has obviously reached a far higher level than most normal beings, which is why the 52 teachers transmit rational info that require at the same time, a leap of faith and trust in the teachings. To an extent, this way of looking at the transmission of rational, discursive information to an initiate via a religious object, text, person or higher being forms part of my theory for trying to articulate the ‘reasonableness’ of Mahayana Buddhism.

But can you trust the supernatural element? I think people like Hume, Dawkins, Harris, etc. have a problem with this, as do most atheist philosophers. The conflict between reason/faith, as they see it, is unnecessary. Hence in principle (I quote from Aquinas) religious faith and reason is in harmony, but in practice, when conflict arises, faith/trust takes precedence over reason.

However, critical rationalism (so avoiding the extremes of strong rationalism and fideism) is the best way to deal with religion because the slight tension between one’s own intellect and the trust one needs to have towards one’s faith creates very intelligent people with very meaningful lives. In fact critical rationalism can very well be a living ‘proof’ of religious truths. It’s definitely necessary for intelligent religious people because strong rationalism implies you don’t want to be religious anyway and fideism doesn’t mean anything. But it is possible to an extent to rationally evaluate a religion for oneself. Some standards to use can be:

internal/external consistency

explanatory power (does it offer a comprehensive view which is illuminating?)

agreement with experience

do the teachings present a coherent unity?

does it help us make sense of the actual living of our lives as well as the cosmos we are tiny parts of?