Assess the role of faith in supporting religious belief

Assess the Role of Faith in Supporting Religious Belief

           In 1877, William Kingdon Clifford propositioned in his book "Ethics and Belief" that belief in something without sufficient evidence is irrational. Whilst he accepted that in many beliefs there is often an epistemic gap between the evidence and the conclusion (inductive reasoning) he did also claim that "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Furthermore he claimed that that tolerating credulity (a tendency to believe readily) and superstition will damage ultimately society. He concurred with David Hume (1711-76) when he said "All wise men proportion their belief to the evidence." This stance - that belief without sufficient evidence is irrational - is called evidentialism, and is adopted by many atheists (including Clifford and Hume) in their view of theology.

            However, natural theology instead attempts to meet evidentialism on its own terms by trying to show that belief in God is actually rational. It draws collectively upon all of the a posteriori arguments for God's existence including the teleological, cosmological, moral and experiential arguments. However, it is rare that an atheist will be convinced by the evidence of these arguments anywhere beyond the point of agnosticism. It is generally accepted that belief in God requires some element of seemingly irrational faith. Indeed, the stance of fideism states that reason plays no part in belief. "Whoever attempts to demonstrate the existence of God...is an excellent subject for a comedy of higher lunacy." - Soren Kierkegaard. Moderate fideists suggest that reason can actually be destructive to one's faith. They claim that reason leads to arrogance by encouraging the idea that human reason alone will suffice and that God unnecessary for moral or spiritual direction. Whilst moderate theists view reason as a barrier to true faith however, (thus disregarding natural theology as irrelevant) extreme theists go so far as to agree with Tertullian when he said (AD 155-222) "Credo quia absurdum est." or "I believe because it is absurd."

            Aquinas (1225-74) claimed that there were two ways in which to know God. The first is through natural theology, including his five a posteriori proofs constructed by human reason. The second is through "revealed theology" which cannot be found by human reason alone, but must involve divine intervention or revelation. The acceptance of these revealed truths requires faith, and this is fundamental to the Christian religion. For example, only faith can reveal the truth behind the statement "God is the father, the son and the Holy Ghost" or that "the bread of communion is the body of Christ". Thus revelation provides us with a body of truths, which must be taken on faith alone. Aquinas claims that faith is a combination of reason and opinion. It involves reason since it is propositional i.e. claims certain beliefs to be true and therefore similar to scientific knowledge. On the other hand these truths cannot be proved, and so involve an epistemic gap. It is this epistemic gap that makes faith a matter of opinion and so allows humanity free will over their belief. The stance that it is our choice whether or not to take a leap of faith was also held by Soren Kierkegaard (1812-1855).

            Alvin Plantinga (1932-) proposed that the classical foundationalism upon which evidentialism is based is flawed. Foundationalist beliefs are described by Plantinga as "the starting points for thought" and he summarises their definition as: "I am entitled to believe X without any evidence if and only if it is self-evident, incorrigible or certain to me in some way". He argues that this is flawed, since this statement is itself neither self-evident, incorrigible nor is it certain in some way. It appears therefore that foundationalism defines itself as irrational. He also states that there are many beliefs that can be held rationally, but that do not fall under the foundationalist criteria or that can be justified contingently. For example, the trust we have in our memory, or the belief that other people have minds of their own. Plantinga argues that we must ultimately reject classical foundationalism on the grounds that it is incoherent, and also because it rejects many beliefs that common sense tells us to be properly basic. He propositions that his reformed epistemology should take the place of classical foundationalism, and because of this: "It is entirely right, rational, reasonable and proper to believe in God without any evidence at all." A theist might claim that it just appears obvious to them that God exists, and for Plantinga this is good enough. However, surely this would mean that anything we like can be a properly basic belief? Could a child's belief in Santa Clause not be defined as properly basic? Plantinga would respond by saying that it is the beliefs directly connected to God's existence that are properly basic, rather than the belief in God's existence itself. For example, the guilt felt after committing a bad deed or the sense that something must have created and designed the universe.

            Blaisé Pascal (1623-1662) deemed that it was reasonable to have faith in God by a sheer act of will, so certain was he that he put forward a wager: "Let us weigh the gain and loss in wagering that God is (exists)...If you gain, you gain all, if you lose, you lose nothing." By this, he meant that the theist stands the chance of gaining entrance to heaven at the risk of nothing, whilst the atheist however risks damnation to hell. However, surely this basis of self-gain is at odds with the teachings of the Christian church? W.K.Clifford suggested that God would deny heaven to those who followed Pascal's wager on the basis that faith should be founded upon trust and morality, not self gain. Pascal might have responded that true belief would arise from the habit of religion i.e. baptism, mass, prayer etc. However, this is contradicted somewhat by his opinion that one's relationship with God should be somewhat deeper. "It is the heart which perceives God and not reason." Furthermore, Pascal's definition of faith appears to ignore the recognition of God's immanence and His affect on our everyday lives.