The Beauty of the Christian Faith: Introduction: Sources: Reason

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the fourth part of the introduction.  Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.

Introduction

The sources of Christian theology are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.  Every variety of Christian theology draws on each of these sources.  One of the first decisions we must make when thinking theologically is how to understand the nature of, and relationship between, these sources.

Reason

“Reason” is the application of the tools of the intellect, including language, observation, logic, and rational argument, to the available data.

The relationship between “faith” and “reason” is a rich and sometimes contentious area of reflection in the Christian tradition.  Christians have always been aware of the limitations of human reason.  Some of these limitations are “natural” – humans cannot know and understand everything that God knows and understands, precisely because we are human creatures and not God.  Some of these limitations are the result of sin.  Because of sin, apart from God’s grace humans tend to ignore and distort many basic truths.[1]  Nevertheless, Christians have always agreed that theology must be informed by human reason.

Perhaps the most profound statement of this relationship comes from the 11th Century theologian St. Anslem:  “faith seeks understanding” (“fides quaerens intellectum”).  Right “understanding” – the correct application of reason – presupposes faith.  This is true even for a person of no religious faith at all.  In order to believe that reason is a reliable process, we must at least assume that the universe we observe is in some sense real, orderly and predictable.  If the observed universe were an illusion brought about by a feverish dream or a malicious demon, for example, or if the laws of nature were radically different in the past than they are today, there would be no basis upon which to believe that our beliefs about things like cause and effect are true – we could not make any inferences from our observations of the world.  But there is no way to prove for certain that the observed universe is not a grand deception with a false history – for if it were a grand deception, we would be deceived in our attempts at any such proof!

This problem is called “Descartes’ Demon,” after Renee Descartes, a brilliant 17th Century mathematician and philosopher.   Descartes sought an indubitable foundation for rational knowledge.  As he reflected on this problem, he realized that, at the very least, he must really exist – or else he could not reflect on the problem of his own existence!  The fact of his own existence, he believed, was beyond doubt, because to doubt that fact is to presume a “self” capable of doubt.  This led him to make his famous statement that “I think therefore I am” (“Cogito ergo sum”).  Descartes believed that from this sure foundation of self-knowledge, using observation and reason, he could establish many other facts for certain.

Most contemporary philosophers recognize that, even if the Cogito is correct, it fails to provide the sort of firm foundation Descartes sought.  Perhaps self-consciousness is itself an illusion.  Perhaps what appears to be “conscious” thought is really an epiphenomenal delusion based in entirely mechanistic biological processes.  Some modern neuroscientists believe precisely this about the human mind.[2]  And even if self-consciousness cannot reasonably be doubted, the “self” might be deceived about what kind of “self” it is, and about what exactly it is capable of perceiving and what kind of mental tools it can apply to those apparent perceptions.

In fact, over a thousand years before Descartes, St. Augustine made a similar observation about self-knowledge and the certainty of one’s own existence.  Augustine, however, was more attuned to human fallibility than Descartes.  When Augustine peered into his own soul, he saw an enormous capacity for rebelliousness and self-deception, along with a yearning for God.  Augustine therefore understood self-knowledge as a springboard to faith in God.[3]

This exercise shows that everyone must employ “faith” as a basis for reason.  Even people who claim to believe nothing but that which can be rationally “proven” must rely on assumptions that cannot be proven about their own minds, their own perceptions, and the universe we inhabit.  “Rationalism” is self-defeating.

It is tempting at this point to discount reason entirely in favor of faith.  Some Christians and other religious people take this approach, at least in some areas of their lives.  For example, some Christians continue to follow certain “health and wealth” preachers even when those preachers are exposed as cheats and frauds.[4]  This is the opposite error to “rationalism”:  “fideism.”

Christian theology is neither rationalistic nor fideistic.  “Reason” is an important source of Christian theology because we are informed by faith commitments about God, ourselves, and creation.  These include that:  God exists; God is the creator of all things; God is a reasonable being; God created humans in His image, with a capacity for observation and reason; creation bears the characteristics of order and intelligibility because creation proceeds from and depends upon God’s will; and God is not a deceiver and is the author of Truth.  We might summarize it this way:  “all Truth is God’s Truth.”  Faith and reason are not at odds; they are in fact necessary to each other.