On rationality, faith, and comparative worldviews
seadragon has had an interesting discussion on the rationality of faith. So far, Jeff's the only one defending the validity of belief, resulting in a further discussion over on his blog. This is my little contribution to the whole debate.*
As I understand it, seadragon's essential belief is this: she feels that she needs a rational reason to have some sort of faith. No one has given her the desired evidence. Therefore, she sees no need to look into faith/religion/whatever and is, in fact, quite content in her atheism.
Jeff's response, again as I understand it, has been to offer both his own personal transformation as evidence and a form of the teleological argument: given the complexity of the universe, it is more rational to believe that it came from a rational, complex being rather than blind chance.
Personally, I find both of these arguments meaningful. Given Jeff's transformation, for example (the teleological argument will have to wait for another day), and the millions of others throughout history, it seems entirely rational to believe that something happened. And given the large number of people who have died for this same belief and experience, it seems that this shared phenomenon is significantly more than the mere search for emotional fulfillment or the result of an existential crisis that some paint it as.
But for the sake of discussion, I'd like to throw in my own $.02 into the mix.
After a while, it becomes evident in most debates like this that there are some underlying assumptions at war. What is at stake is not the correct conclusion to a mathematical or logical proof or the proper interpretation of a lab experiment, but an entire worldview, a way of seeing and understanding reality itself. To seadragon, for example (not to pick on her, but she's giving the clearest arguments), the existence of God is something to argue to. This already says something about both God and herself. First, that some sort of a divine being is ultimately unnecessary for rationality. Second, that, if that being exists, she is entirely capable of reasoning her way unaided and objectively to an understanding of that being.
I, however, share none of those assumptions. To me, the existence of God is something to argue from. It is in the same category of belief as the propositions "I exist," or "2+2=4", or "my wife loves me." It is not a nice little conclusion to a mental exercise, but formational to who I am and how I see things. (See Faith & Rationality for an extended defense of belief in God as "properly basic.") This leads to two crucial differences with atheism. First, I believe that rationality is fully dependent upon God. And, second, that the question of belief in God is not morally or epistemologically neutral, but that one's own relationship, whether with or without, God will affect the final conclusion.
Does that result in an impasse? Not necessarily. One option is to compare the worldview candidates to see which are internally consistent and conform to our experiences of this world. This is where I believe atheism runs into some serious difficulties. Take morality, for example. Seadragon stated that:
What I get from not having a religion is a feeling of openness. A feeling that truth can be discovered through exploration, investigation, hypothesis testing, and things like that. I'm not constrained by a faith in something that restricts what I can believe about creation, morality, the future, etc. I don't have to suspend my doubt about something and hope it doesn't bug me too much. I can embrace it. Somehow that's a lot more comforting to me than the feeling that an answer has been handed to me and yet I have no way to discerning its validity, and no authority to question it.
I take this to mean that a logical consequence of atheism is that morality is not absolute, that it is something open to "doubt," and to individual interpretation and determination. But does that work? Who is to then say which morality is right or wrong? A short three hundred years ago it was painfully obvious to most of the civilized world that slavery was acceptable. How can we judge them?
Furthermore, I do not think that seadragon actually lives this way. I've met her, and she is fun to hang out and talk with. She has also made a laudable effort to be charitable and gracious in her discussions on faith. Doing this shows at least a subconscious effort to maintain a moral standard of personal dealings.
Plus, from various posts she has had in the past and from the selection of political links on her blog, I am guessing she has a particular opinion on the Iraq War. But, doesn't the act of judging a war as being immoral speak of an allegiance to a higher moral (absolute perhaps?) standard to which even the US leadership is accountable?
On the contrary, a belief in an all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, all-good, and all-holy God, an "absolute personality" (cf. Frame), coheres well with the world. If morality is determined by a God who is personal yet fully and completely good, then that explains why everyone senses an obligation to be good, why even serial murderers attempt to find moral justification for their deeds; there is a recognition, however subconscious, of something "above" our own personal desires and no one would feel obligated to a mere static principle, as great as it might be. The same, I believe, could be said for the near-universal desire for rational coherence; why would beings that are the accidental results of chaos care so much about making sense of things?
Much more, of course, could be said. I also have no expectations that this will cause someone to immediately agree with me; as I said, I think faith is more than (although it includes) intellectual assent, just as my being married is significantly more than agreement with the statement "Amy is my wife." Hopefully, at least, it will help serve as a reasonable response to the assumption that belief in God is inherently irrational.
* - borrowing very heavily from Alvin Plantinga and John Frame
August 3, 2004 10:28 PM