Reason and Faith

I recently gave a talk titled “What is Reason?”  This might seem very abstract and it is.  I am asking for a definition of “reason” in itself, not reason as defined by how it is used by some humans.  Just like we might define “good,” or “real,” in themselves rather than giving examples of good or real things.

Reason in itself is the laws of thought.  These are called identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle.  A law of thought is what defines thought as thought and distinguishes it from all other things.  Some people argue about which are the laws of thought, and some argue that there are no laws of thought.  Each of these quickly becomes self-referentially absurd meaning that they rely on the very laws they argue against.

We can distinguish reason from reasoning.  Reasoning means the human thought process.  It is often fallacious and mistaken.  Some say it is fallen.  But the law of non-contradiction cannot be fallen and is not fallacious.  Reason is not the same as giving reasons or rationalization.

We can also distinguish reason from naturalistic thinking.  This is thinking that only considers material or natural causes.  When we identify reason with nature we end up in a false dichotomy between nature and faith.  However, this is a false dichotomy because in matters of faith as well as nature we use the laws of thought to think and understand; we distinguish a  from non-a, God from non-God, Trinity from non-Trinity.

Sometimes the apparent tension between reason and faith arises because the truth of the articles of faith cannot be deduced from reason alone.  Faith refers to the contents of special revelation, or scripture.  It could be true that truths of special revelation cannot be deduced by reason from general revelation.  Reason is not primarily a test for truth.  Reason is first a test for meaning.  When we are presented with an article of faith the first question is “what does it mean?”  If we cannot know what it means then we cannot know if it is true or false.

We use reason to think about the meaning of truths from general revelation and we use reason to think about the meaning of truths from special revelation.  Meaning is lost when there is a contradiction; if there is meaning it is because the laws of thought are being affirmed (distinguishing a from non-a).

I was once told that in matters of faith there are apparent contradictions.  These appear to be contradictions to us because of our finitude but we must believe them on the basis of authority.  It is true that sometimes we call contradiction! when there is not one and it takes effort to identify true contradictions.  Tensions are not the same as contradictions and it might be that we must hold tensions in mind at certain times as we grow in faith.  But if there is no way for us to know whether something is an actual contradiction (a and non-a) or an apparent contradiction then we can never know because we will always be finite.  Any attempt to say a theory we disagree with involves a contradiction will be met with “it’s only an apparent contradiction.”  Meaning would be lost.  We should not follow an authority that tells us to affirm what is meaningless.

In following out the implications of apparent contradictions some have said we must move beyond the cognitive realm of reason and embrace the non-cognitive.  This is sometimes affirmed by schools of mystics from various and competing traditions.  Each says they have the true mystical approach but avoid criticism by the move to apparent contradictions and the non-cognitive.  The non-cognitive means the move to non-thought, or to silence.  What cannot be thought cannot be spoken.  It is no longer a belief or an article of faith and so there is nothing to think or say.  It is impossible to live this way and these traditions end up offering defenses of themselves which is a move back to thought and reason.  We cannot abandon reason we can only abandon our integrity.

Reason in itself is the laws of thought.  We use reason to find meaning and understand what is clear.  Our next step is to identify the most basic beliefs and apply reason to these.