Faith and Reason in Balance

Introduction

            The faith and reason debate has been one that has plagued the church for centuries and has had people thinking about the relationship between these two things and other variables for the same amount of time. The ultimate point of this particular discourse will be to support a certain point of view as superior to the other viewpoints. Faith and reason are foundationally and relationally grounded in Scripture and therefore these two aspects should be viewed as two components that work together in a synthesis or coherent fashion to achieve God’s ultimate end in humanity. With this view in mind, I will argue that faith and reason are to remain in balance with each one serving its own function and not overpowering the other but ultimately having its own designed purpose within mankind.

Overview of Faith and Reason

            The most obvious place to start is to have a foundational understanding of both of these concepts prior to venturing out into the murky details. Both faith and reason have a certain domain, and each has multiple definitions that have been used throughout the years and only a couple of those definitions will be presented here. The reason for this is because this is in no way meant to be an exhaustive report of this issue and also to condense the material down to what I feel is most important and to focus on showcasing the view that I feel serves as the most accurate and functional model to hold.

Faith Defined and Explained

            To begin, I think a certain premise regarding faith needs to be made clear and something Richard Dawkins said illustrates this point, “faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”[1] What Dawkins is suggesting is that faith is essentially the idea that one can believe in some premise or set of beliefs without evidence but what I will present will show the opposite is true and this is found within the meaning and biblical understanding and concept of faith. Of course, biblically speaking we are told to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27; Mark 12:30-31), and faith is a relational status and requires us to place trust in someone which would require the use of many different parts of who we are not simply blindly leaping into the unknown as suggested by Dawkins and countless others.

            Now to close this section I will present a coherent idea of the concept of faith as given by both Moreland and Craig in two different texts, but the material is the same; faith is expressed as three different aspects: notitia (understanding the content of Christian faith/ knowledge), fiducia (trust), and assensus (assent of the intellect to some proposition/ Christian teaching).[2] What this points to is that faith is far more than this idea of blindly leaping but rather the biblical model of faith requires the mind, it is both intellectual and relational. These are the two domains that I will primarily focus on where faith inhabits or is prime in the relational field and reason takes center stage in the intellectual field, but both serve in each place to help bolster the other, they balance off each other.

Reason Defined and Explained

            Reason can be a little more difficult since not just theologians but also philosophers throughout the years have had things to say about reason. However, Carl Boyd gives three different positions concerning reason: reason 1 is a “value-neutral” type of reason which had some good qualities to it throughout history and gave rise to scientific inquiry and the sorts.[3] Reason 2 was a view that the reasoning abilities in man had been corrupted by the effects of sin which led to strict fideists. Reason 3, which is the position of Carl Boyd, he suggests that all life requires some form of reasoning and if we could not reason without faith restoring our reasoning then no one could function apart from faith but that is clearly not the way the world is working.[4] Reason really is our ability to think about things based on what we see, hear, feel, think, taste, remember, etc.; it involves our ability to come to a certain conclusion given a certain set of informative qualities that may lead us to a certain end and our reason is what gets us to that end.

The Effect of the Fall

Effect on Faith

            Since grasping the effects of the fall on the person's faith and reasoning capabilities does play a part in this discussion but does not necessarily play a vital role in the overall defense of a certain position (because all positions acknowledge the fallenness of man to a degree) this section will be brief. The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23) and we know that salvation is by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9). Since no person has salvation prior to confession in Christ and must announce Christ and believe that he rose from the dead (Rom 10:9-10) then it can be surmised that the faith has been crippled because of the fall and salvation is obviously gone unless man comes to faith in Christ. The only issue is salvation is by faith alone and how does one come to faith? Is it strictly by faith (relational), does it include reason (thinking, which I believe it does), or does God simply call those whom he saves? Either way faith has been hindered because not all believe that there is a God even when presented with evidence which leads to the effects on reason.

Effect on Reason

            Dr. Towns gives a good synopsis of this idea when he discusses hamartiology and he mentions that Calvin believed that man's reasoning was inoperable due to the fall whereas Arminius disagreed with that assessment and believed that man “can reason with God.”[5] Now this reflects two sides (which can translate to two positions discussed in this course as well), mans’ reasoning abilities are completely useless when it comes to God and we are laid to waste unless God does something about it and this view I believe to be wrong and will be discussed further later on. The other side is that mans’ reasoning can lead him to God even potentially to the point of gaining salvation which also has its problems and will be discussed further. Reason has been affected by the fall but not to such the extent that it is completely useless but not so little that we are somehow able to save ourselves from our own condition. Again, here is the importance of understanding that balance is the key idea in the view between these two ideas for them to function properly in the life of the believer even amongst the effects of the fall (and among other variables not discussed here).

Views of Faith and Reason Relationship

Faith’s Primacy

            This first view (of course there are only three views presented and some have broken them down a little more, but these are most prominent) can be classified as fideism or “faith-ism” which submits the idea that “religious belief systems are not subject to rational evaluation.”[6] This view makes the point that after so long you will reach a point where you will eventually reach one's foundational assumptions/ beliefs or those things that you believe based on assumption or those things that you take on faith because there is no evidence outrightly to support that belief and all worldviews have these assumptions, even naturalism. The main idea behind the fideist ideology is, according to Peterson, “for a sincere religious believer, the most foundational assumptions are found in the religious belief system itself.”[7] So at some point one will have to take a stance simply on their system of beliefs and be justified in their faith.

            Dodwell and Van Til have separate reasons for accepting the fideist position, for Dodwell rational arguments do not give a level of “certainty required for faith” and for Van Til “because sinful humans must accept the authority of Scripture before they can understand arguments for its truthfulness.”[8] Of course there is truth that can be seen in this and a conservativeness in it because no one wants to concede too much to the sinful human nature. Faith is obviously a very important aspect and it is important that it not be downplayed by any means and the fideist perspective does well in that area.

            To understand this position fully though, I believe that the faith having primacy (fideist) position makes one fatal error and this is overplaying faiths role in the God-human relationship. To make this position clear, faith plays a monumental role in our relationship to God because as stated before it has as one of its aspects trust which is relational in nature and that is what the Christian life is, a relational stance with the creator God. However, mankind was created in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and that carries with it all of the qualities that God has, and reason is part of that, no matter if sin effected it. Though sin has infiltrated our nature it has not crippled our capabilities to reason but what it has done has limited our capabilities to save ourselves with our reason. Reason needs faith and faith needs reason. The fideist position also stresses the fact that faith is not rational, but it is relational but the issues with this as pointed out by Carl Boyd is that it presents a false dichotomy and makes it seem like these two concepts are mutually exclusive.[9] The major issue that can be seen here is that when you are dating someone you are there to get to know them (which is a relationship endeavor) but it requires much of your intellect to understand who they are, their wants and needs and how the relationship needs to function in order for it to work and flourish within the full context of what you both desire.

Reason’s Primacy

            It has been said that Thomas Aquinas believed in the natural reason and that faith played no part in his philosophical theology.[10] There is debate on whether this is true or not but there are those who hold this position nonetheless. Essentially, this position holds reason over faith where reason is the one way in which we find our way to God. Reason can be seen as the way in which mankind thinks his way through, by way of his natural endowments as given by God to the realities as established by God’s creative order. The basic idea can be seen in general revelation since Paul said that there was enough information in nature so that everyone was without excuse (Rom 1:20). The thought process behind this trend is that if God by his divine grace has allowed enough information to be forthright in nature then man will have a natural endowment to attain that information by his own intellect otherwise it would be unjust to say he is without excuse (this is, of course, my own rendition of this line of thinking). Another way to render this down is to think of it from a foundationalist perspective and see it in two ways: the empiricist is going to call for empirical evidence to verify a position held (not so much applicable to the conversation here) and the rationalist who is going, to begin with premises which are self-evident to reason which that place reason or rationality as most important.[11] Not much else can be said that has not been said for this position at this point but that it places reason above faith in the pursuit of God and surmises that the human mind can think its way to God without or at least with minimal assistance (depending on the one's viewpoint) from faith.

            Now, in a similar fashion for the evaluation portion, I will highlight something that is close to the same but on the opposing end of the spectrum. The major issue with this view is that it places far too much emphasis on the human mind and too little on the relational aspect. Of course, coming to know someone and learning someone is relational but simply knowing is only one part of that relationship, another major part that will ultimately bring that relationship into fuller expression is what faith brings and that is the trust aspect. Also, as pointed out earlier on how the fall affected the human mind, it did have negative effects to the point where we as people are unable to save ourselves. Now, not all rationalists may submit the idea that our rational capabilities can ultimately save us or bring us salvation, but it does reason to that conclusion if we can deduce that God exists, he sent his son, he rose from the dead, if I accept him I will have salvation, then my reason has brought me all the way to the point and faith really played no role. The other major error with this view is not only downplaying the role of faith but also the effects of sin on the volitional capacities of man. Sin played an obvious part in how man thinks (and our relationship) and to not recognize this fact would be to not take in the full scope of information that is presented to us.

Balance of Faith and Reason

            Now I come to the view that I shall submit as the superior view with regard to the functionality of faith and reason and their relational status within mankind. Faith and reason are two aspects that are in balance that work together to completely fulfill God’s salvific and teleologic purposes in man. Weinandy puts it forth this way, “reason and faith pertain to our human intellectual ability to know.”[12] As can be seen not just reason but both reason and faith together form our intellectual abilities that lead us to know. Another concept that is important in the view that I am suggesting here is that of obedience or doing or works (as seen in James) because it is a highlighting factor in any relationship so one could say that it is faith and reason in action. To say it a little more eloquently, reason finds the evidence and faith gives the confidence in the believing and obedience is the acting on both of those factors together. Weinandy, says that our intellect basically is seeking to find truth and it is that “truth, then, binds our will to our intellect for our will obediently acknowledges and submits to the truth that our intellect places before it.”[13]

            Picture in your mind a Venn diagram inside of a square. The square represents the Christian life and each circle represents faith and reason (respectively). Within each sphere (faith/ reason) these aspects have their own individual capacities that make them special in reference to the Christian life and in functionality. But there is overlap between these two aspects because they share qualities. Under reason, this is our intellect or cognitive sphere that houses our basic understanding of God and the things that he has created, this view of God is limited in scope because the fall has limited its overall capacities and our information is limited, so we have a limited and fallible/ human view of God. Under faith, this is our relational sphere which houses our trust quality and where we ultimately come to achieve salvation by because salvation is through faith alone. Under the overlap section, is a unified understanding and expression of God in a limited earthly sense, but a much fuller expression than if either aspect is to take precedence over the other since both need to balance the other out in order to round out our already limited sense of who God is, what he has created, and the rather limited information that we have specifically regarding this issue and his character/ person.

            This view is over the other views because what it does is it showcases the best attributes of the competing views and marries them into one view. One can think of a tightrope walker and know that balance is very important when on the rope and life can be viewed in much the same way because we are dealing with a limited perspective on many issues and limited information, so a balanced approach seems to be the best of both worlds. This view does not place too much emphasis on the fallible human person who we know has a skewed inner self nor does it overplay the faith aspect and expect the person to believe simply to believe, believing predicated on nothing. Though this view does not offer a fully developed epistemological structure at this point one could be made that would suffice for the interested inquirer. However, a weakness could be stated that since this view is making such an emphasis on not making an emphasis that it is simply lacking making a definitive answer about anything, but I surmise that that is just failing to see that these two aspects are not in conflict with one another but are actually a cohesive unit that enhances each other’s functionality.

Conclusion

            As can be seen from the above content that this discussion is not one that can be simply glossed over and that the debate still rages on. Some give precedence to faith which I believe to be overstating the relational aspect at the expense of our intellectual aspect as image bearers. Others hold to a rational precedence which I believe also to be in error because that lets the pendulum swing in the opposite direction and overstates man's ability to think and downplays the relational aspect that faith brings. The view that I have suggested is one that marries these two ideas into a balanced view so that reason and faith both serve within their own domains within the Christian life while having overlap with one another where they assist in serving one another to bring about in the Christian the highest level of functionality that (as stated before) was God’s teleologic purpose from the beginning.

Bibliography

Beilby, James K. Thinking About Christian Apologetics: What it is and Why we do it. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011.

Di Ceglie, Roberto. “Faith, Reason, and Charity in Thomas Aquinas’s Thought.” International Journal of Philosophy and Religion 79 (2016): 133-146. DOI: 10.1007/s11153-015-9513-6.

Evans, C. Stephen and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.

Moreland, J. P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2012.

Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Peterson, Michael et al., Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Plantinga, Alvin Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2015.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. Mason: Cengage, 2008.

Weinandy, Thomas G. “Reason, Faith, and Obedience.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 13, no. 4 (Fall 2010): 133-155.

Boyd, Carl A. “The Synthesis of Reason and Faith,” in Faith and Reason: Three Views, ed. Steve Wilkens. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.

---

[1] Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 57. This is coming from the very beginning of the chapter on faith and is being used to showcase how non-Christians view faith as a belief based on no or the lack of evidence.

[2] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), Chapter 1; J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with all Your Mind (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2012), 70. Both references use the same material about faith in a similar fashion but highlight slightly different facets about each word giving each a slightly different flavor. The point serves the exact same purpose that faith is more than just blind belief but is both intellectual and relational.

[3] Carl A. Boyd, “The Synthesis of Reason and Faith,” in Faith and Reason: Three Views, ed. Steve Wilkens (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014), 138.

[4] Ibid., 146-147.

[5] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Cengage, 2008), 501.

[6] Michael Peterson et al. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 65.

[7] Ibid.

[8] James K. Beilby, Thinking About Christian Apologetics: What it is and Why We Do it (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 89.

[9] Carl A. Boyd, “The Synthesis of Reason and Faith,” in Faith and Reason: Three Views, ed. Steve Wilkens, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014), 78. This particular citation came from his response to the “Faith and Philosophy in Tension” position and points out how the position has a weakness in it where it over emphasizes the relational aspect.

[10] Roberto Di Geglie, “Faith, Reason, and Charity in Thomas Aquinas’s Thought” International Journal of Philosophy and Religion 79 (2016): 134.

[11] C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 189.

[12] Thomas G. Weinandy, “Reason, Faith, and Obedience” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 13, no. 4 (Fall 2010): 133.

[13] Ibid., 134.