Is Faith Reasonable?
I often hear people either state or else insinuate that reason and logic are somehow opposed to spirituality. People frequently set these two against one another. One of the arguments used in defense of this notion is that emotions are the original and natural state of man and that we can only return to wholeness by returning to this natural state. For example, the author of one website on the topic says: "My belief is that emotions are our body's original language. Beginning even in the womb" (Thurston). The idea is that, if emotions are the original language, then logic and reason must be degeneration from that original state (a flawed use of logic in itself).
Even among my fellow Christians, I sometimes encounter this antipathy toward reason and logic. One report on where Americans get their theological views states that fifty-four percent of Americans believe that "truth can be discovered only through logic, human reasoning and personal experience." This report assesses this as contrary to the Christian belief that truth comes from the Bible. I think, however, that this is a false alternative. The reality is that truth comes from both logic and experience (that is to say science) and from the Scriptures. There is no inherent contradiction between these two sources of truth. When Einstein discovered E-MC2, he discovered truth. This did not come from the Bible but from the scientific method which combines logic and experience. As Christians, we believe that God is the author of E=MC2 and that Einstein merely discovered the work of God, but there is no contradiction between them.
Of course, there is both pseudo-science and also pseudo-theology. Neither is in line with truth when truth is understood as any statement that aligns with the facts. By pseudo-science, I mean that science that settles into a theory and ceases to expose itself to potential disconfirming data. I believe the current creed about global warming is dangerously close to becoming a pseudo science because it has become so politicized that people are unwilling to even consider disconfirming data (Morano, 2008). Pseudo-theology is much the same; it is what happens when Christians settle into certain theological positions and refuse entrance of disconfirming data such as passages of the Scriptures that don't fit their theology.
Nevertheless, in spite of the abuse by some of science, the scientific method continues to be a highly reliable way to explore and discover truths about God's universe. On the other hand, to surrender to emotions as the language of dialogue is to revert to barbarism. While emotions, such as fear and pride, have certainly played a vital role in the theological divisiveness that has plagued the Church through the ages, to surrender to their dominance is not the answer. Instead, what we need in the church are more theological scientists: those who are willing to expose their positions to the arduous task of dialogue.
Emotions are fundamentally unreliable as a source of truth. All of us who have flown on an airplane know what it is like to be sitting there awaiting departure and to experience the sensation that the plane is moving. Then you realize that in fact it was the plane next to you that was moving. Your feelings had nothing to do with the facts. This is why feelings and emotions can never serve as the arbitrator of truth.
I believe there is no contradiction between reason and spirituality and that true spirit is always congruent with true science. I continue to hear people praise the 1960s as a great time of enlightenment for American culture. We are told that as a result of this new age of spirituality, people's minds were opened (usually through the use of LSD) and we were able to break away from the rigid formalism of institutions like the Christian church. I recognize that Christianity is sometimes rigid and overly formal; but I contend that the elevation of emotions to the level of insight will bring about a far more severe kind of rigidity and intolerance.
For a long time now, we have known that emotions play a huge role in determining human behavior. Logic, therefore, is said to be of no use in dealing with most human problems. One person writes: "Trying to solve emotional problems such as anger, shame, guilt, abandonment, rejection, fear of power, success, etc. logically is likely not even possible" (Thurston). Running into the obstacle of human emotion, we are told that the only option is to throw up our hands and say: "When you can't beat them. Join them." I don't believe that the solution to man's illogical behavior is to embrace illogic as a core value.
The main point of what I'm trying to make here is that human beings must have a common language and that language cannot be emotions or some kind of mystical spirituality that divorces itself from the rigors of reason. What do you think? Are we witnessing the demise of reason in these times? Is reason and logic the cause of our current turmoil or is it rather the lack of reason and sound logic?
Sources Cited
Thurston, Lance, Emotions and You, http://www.lancethurston.com/emotions.htm
The Barna Group. The Barna Update. October 8, 2002. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=122
See Marc Morano, UN Blowback: More than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. December 10, 2008. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Kevin Rosseel. Reason Photo. September 23, 2007. Available at http://www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=181799&
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (1)
Subscribe to this comment's feedShow/hide comments
...
-
- +0
-
-
Show/hide comment form
![[Unable to display photo]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2133/Shared%20Photos/gwaddell_cropped.jpg)
