Faith and Reason

1
Faith and Reason

• Do reason and faith conflict?

2
Reason vs. Faith

• Waco disaster, Jonestown mass suicide
• What made these possible?
• The actions were the logical outcome of the
  belief systems. (If Koresh is God and he says x,
  then x is true.)

3
Faith vs. Reason

• But, arent these belief systems misguided?
• Yes, but these are people of faith -- thats
  why they did all this. Faith leaves open these
  sorts of possibilities.

4
Reason vs. Faith

• Faith, understood that way, suggests that it is
  an act/commitment that is insulated from reason.
• This is a common understanding of Faith.
• Pascal The heart has its reasons which reason
  does not know.

5
Faith vs. Reason

• Is there another way to understand faith?
• Ideas
• Faith arises from experience, but on many views,
  rel. exp. involves concepts that can be
  rationally considered.
• Pope Benedicts view

6
Faith vs. Reason

• We made up a whole, working in everything on the
  basis of a single rationality with its various
  aspects of sharing responsibility for the right
  use of reason.
• it is still necessary and reasonable to raise
  the question of God through the use of reason,
  and to do so in the context of the tradition of
  Christian faith
• Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary
  to Gods nature. (This view is at the heart of
  the Christian conception of God.)
• Rejection of non-cognitivism.
• Importance of communication and of reasoned
  argument.
• Question for next time Does Pope Benedict hold
  a Strong rationalist or a Critical rationalist
  view?

7
Reason vs. Faith

• Very few people would say that there is NO role
  for reason in a life of faith.
• At the very least, the religion needs to be
  taught. The transmission of the religious view
  will, at least in part, involve the exercise of
  the intellect (reason, in some sense).

8
Strong Rationalism

• Strong Rationalism The view that one ought to
  accept beliefs, including religious beliefs, only
  when they are based on good reasons. (The belief
  system must meet standards for rational belief
  acceptance.)
• A belief should not be accepted unless one can
  show it is true in way that would be accepted by
  any rational person.

9
Strong Rationalism

• Clifford
• It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone,
  to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
• Pg. 109 -- To believe without good reason is
  immoral.
• Why does he think this?

10
Strong Rationalism

• We act based on our beliefs
• So, our beliefs have consequences for us and for
  others.
• Ship owner example
• Unjustified accusers case
• What are the consequences?
• Intuitions? Do you agree w/Clifford?

11
Strong Rationalism

• Further reason We become credulous.
• Pg. 108

12
Strong Rationalism Objections

• Most people in the world are unlucky and have to
  work, cant get an education, etc, surely they
  are not immoral if they dont have time to think
  about these things.
• Response?

13
S.R. (Objections)

• Pg. 109 -- Then one should not believe in those
  cases.
• Is this view too harsh?

14
S.R. (Objections)

• Does the demand for reasons that will satisfy
  all reasonable people make it impossible for a
  strong rationalist to adopt religious beliefs?
• Why would it?

15
S.R. (Objections)

• Religious Diversity.
• In the case of mathematics, there is not much
  diversity amongst reasonable people.
• In the case of God, there is great diversity.
• Reply?

16
S.R. (Objections)

• Convergence fails for lots of reasons
• 1. People are blinded by prejudice.
• 2. Even in mathematics (e.g. higher
  mathematics) most people will not see what has
  the most rational support b/c its too
  complicated.
• So, religious belief is still possible (e.g. in
  light of a proof of the existence of God.)

17
S.R. Objections

• Is S.R. too strong?
• Why would it be?

18
Objections to S.R.

• This view is to apply to all beliefs and,
  importantly, all comprehensive world views.
• Science as a comprehensive view.
• Morality as a comprehensive view.
• Social practices -- traditions.
• Are the beliefs these are based on capable of
  being justified by reasons that any reasonable
  person would accept.?

19
S.R. (Objections)

• What is the conception of reason employed by the
  Strong Rationalist?
• Recall Triggs view The Autonomy of Religion
  -- By reference to what does reason justify
  beliefs?
• Does reason function independently of a
  world-view? Is it neutral?
• Our world-views influence what types of arguments
  we take to be good arguments.

20
Pascal (1623-1662)

• Pascal -- mathematical genius. By the age of 13,
  he found a flaw in Descartes geometry. Invented
  a mechanical calculator (the pascaline).
• In 1650, he abruptly turned from mathematics to
  religion to study the greatness and misery of
  man.

21
Pascal

• His wager argument is deceptively simple.
  Involves early (maybe first?) use of probability
  theory and decision theory -- but in conjunction
  with questions about theism, pragmatism,
  voluntarism and the concept of infinity.

22
A Gloss on the Argument

• Suppose you are offered a lottery ticket. The
  probability of winning
• 1 million is .5
• The ticket costs 1(that you would have spent on
  coffee).
• Is it in your interest to buy the ticket?

23
Pascal

• Is Pascal offering a proof of the existence of
  God?

24
Pascal

• No. Pascal is offering an argument, based in
  probability theory and decision theory for why we
  should believe in God.

25
Pascal

• Decision theory
• Outcome -- Determined by i) the way the world
  is and ii) what an agent does.
• Each outcome can be assigned a value.

26
Pascal

• Any Decision problem, rep w/Matrix
• State W1 State W2

Action 1
Action 2
27
Pascal

In the case below, A1 superdominates A2

W2 (.5)
W1(.5)
A1
A2
28
Pascal

• Assume the states of the world are independent of
  what the agent does
• Then the expected utility can be calculated by
  multiplying the utility the action produces (in
  each state) by the probability. Then add the
  numbers.

29
Pascal
Pascal

W2
W1
A1
A2
30
Pascal

• God is or he is not. But to which shall we
  incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There
  is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game
  is being played at the extremity of this infinite
  distance where heads or tails will turn up -
  Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since
  you must choose, let us see which interests you
  least. You have two things to lose, the true and
  the good and two things at stake, your reason
  and your will, your knowledge and your happiness
  and your nature has two things to shun, error and
  misery. Your reason is no more shocked in
  choosing one rather than the other, since you
  must of necessity chooseBut your happiness? Let
  us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that
  God isIf you gain, you gain all if you lose,
  you lose nothing. Wager, then, without
  hesitation that He is,.

31
Pascal

• Decision Matrix How should you decide?

God exists
God does not exist
For God
Wager
Wager against
32
Pascal

• Can we assign probabilities?
• Depends on what is meant by reason can decide
  nothing here. -- If not, then Pascals argument
  does not work.
• Can we assume the same value where God does not
  exist?

33
Pascal

• Pg. 102 I may perhaps wager too much.
• So, there is some loss if I believe and God does
  not exist.
• Whats the loss?

34
Pascal

• So, what are the probabilities?
• .5 and .5 (????)
• Where does this come from?
• Reason cant decide.

35
Pascal

• Pascal needs two assumptions
• Probability of God .5
• If God exists, and you wagered for him, it brings
  infinite reward (Gain all).

36
Pascal

• But there is an eternity of life and happiness.
  And this being so, if there were an infinity of
  chances, of which one only would be for you, you
  would still be right in wagering one to win two,
  and you would act stupidly, being obliged to
  play, by refusing to stake one life against three
  at a game in which out of an infinity of chances
  there is one for you, if there were an infinity
  of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there
  is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life
  to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number
  of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
  It is all divided wherever the infinite is and
  there is not an infinity of chances of loss
  against that of gain, there is no time to
  hesitate, you must give all

37
Pascal

• 1. Either God exists or does not exist and you
  can either wager for God or against God.
• Wager for God - He exists (infinite utility)
• He not-ex (finite utility)
• Wager against God - He exists (finite utility)
• He not-ex
  (finite utility

38
Pascal

• 2. Rationality requires you to assign some
  positive probability to God.
• 3. Rationality requires you to perform the act
  of maximum expected utility.
• 4. So, rationality requires you to wager for
  God.
• 5. So, You should wager for God.

39
Objections to Pascal?

40
Objections

• 1. Will the values be the same for everyone?
  (Maybe being saved doesnt sound so hot to me).
• 2. Does the notion of infinite utility make
  sense? If it does, can finite beings like us
  appreciate it?
• 3. Will our reasons for believing make a
  difference to the outcomes?

41
Objections

• 4. Which God should I believe in? (Maybe we
  should add more columns to the matrix.)
• 5. What does the argument support believing in
  God or making myself believe in God?
• Can I just make myself believe?

42
Pascal

• Pascals response to 5?

43
Pascal

• You would like to attain faith, and do not know
  the way you would like to cure yourself of
  unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of
  those who have been bound like you, and who now
  stake all their possessions. These are people
  who know the way which you would follow, and who
  are cured of an ill of which you would be cured.
  Follow the way by which they began by acting as
  if they believed, taking the holy water, having
  masses said, etc

44
Pascal

• Believing in God can be a way of betting on God.
• The non-believer can bet on God by trying to be
  like the believer.

45
Fideism

• The view that religious belief systems cannot be
  evaluated rationally.
• (Does this imply that the belief systems are
  irrational?)

46
Fideism

• Motivation for Fideism
• Every argument relies on premises.
• Premises can be defended with further arguments.
• Those further arguments require premises.
• At some point this must stop.
• The Fideist claims this stopping point is in a
  religious belief system.

47
Fideism

• So, for a Fideist, the commitment to religion is
  a commitment to a comprehensive world-view.
• CWV - A world view that applies over all areas
  of ones life it includes conceptions of what is
  valuable in human life, ideals of personal
  character, ideals of friendship and of familial
  and social relationships (and more).

48
Fideism

• So, the religious belief system supplies the most
  fundamental assumptions of human life.
• Can we justify those assumptions?
• No, we accept them on faith.

49
Fideism

• So, why would anyone believe something based on
  faith?
• Something odd about that question.

50
S. Kierkegaard

• Thought of as the father of Existentialism.
• What is existentialism?
• Cultural/Intellectual Movement, Europe in 40s
  50s
• Set of reactions against ancient and modern
  thought.

51
S. Kierkegaard

• For countless ages the hot nebula whirled
  aimlessly through space. At length it began to
  take shape, the central mass threw off planets,
  the planets cooled, boiling seas and burning
  mountains heaved and tossed, from black masses of
  cloud hot sheets of rain deluged the barely solid
  crust. And now the first germ of life grew in the
  depths of the ocean, and developed rapidly in the
  fructifying warmth into vast forest trees, huge
  ferns springing from the damp mould, sea monsters
  breeding, fighting, devouring, and passing away.
  And from the monsters, as the play unfolded
  itself, Man was born, with the power of thought,
  the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel
  thirst for worship. And Man saw that all is
  passing in this mad, monstrous world, that all is
  struggling to snatch, at any cost, a few brief
  moments of life before Death's inexorable decree.
  And Man said There is a hidden purpose, could
  we but fathom it, and the purpose is good for we
  must reverence something, and in the visible
  world there is nothing worthy of reverence.' And
  Man stood aside from the struggle, resolving that
  God intended harmony to come out of chaos by
  human efforts. And when he followed the instincts
  which God had transmitted to him from his
  ancestry of beasts of prey, he called it Sin, and
  asked God to forgive him. But he doubted whether
  he could be justly forgiven, until he invented a
  divine Plan by which God's wrath was to have been
  appeased. And seeing the present was bad, he made
  it yet worse, that thereby the future might be
  better. And he gave God thanks for the strength
  that enabled him to forgo even the joys that were
  possible. And God smiled and when he saw that
  Man had become perfect in renunciation and
  worship, he sent another sun through the sky,
  which crashed into Man's sun and all returned
  again to nebula.

52
Kierkegaard

• Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more
  void of meaning, is the world which Science
  presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if
  anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a
  home. That Man is the product of causes which had
  no prevision of the end they were achieving that
  his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his
  loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of
  accidental collocations of atoms that no fire,
  no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling,
  can preserve an individual life beyond the grave
  that all the labours of the ages, all the
  devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday
  brightness of human genius, are destined to
  extinction in the vast death of the solar system,
  and that the whole temple of Man's achievement
  must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a
  universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite
  beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that
  no philosophy which rejects them can hope to
  stand. Only within the scaffolding of these
  truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding
  despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be
  safely built.
• How, in such an alien and inhuman world, can so
  powerless a creature as Man preserve his
  aspirations untarnished? (B. Russell A Free
  Mans Worship)

53
Kierkegaard

• Kierkegaards way out
• Faith in God
• Christian God
• But, in a drastically different way.
• Affirm your own existence through faith in God.

54
Kierkegaard

• Faith An objective uncertainty held fast in an
  appropriation-process of the most passionate
  inwardness.
• Kierkegaards idea makes sense
• Reject the idea of getting objective certainty.
• No risk involved YOU are lost if you only look
  for that.

55
Kierkegaard

• Arguments
• The Approximation Argument
• P1 Historical evidence can never be completely
  certain, but can only yield
• a certain degree of probability.
• P2 However, religious faith involves an
  'infinite interest' in the truth of
• one's beliefs.
• P3 There is an incompatibility between an
  approximation to the truth and
• our infinite personal interest in eternal
  happiness.
• P4 Thus, faith requires a "leap" that cannot be
  justified by objective
• historical reasoning and evidence.
• See R. Adams, "Kierkegaard's Arguments against
  Objective Reasoning in Religion," The Monist,
  vol. 60, no. 2 (1977).

56
Kierkegaard

• The Postponement Argument (Ibid.)
• P1 Historical inquiry is never completed and so
  
• its results are always tentative and
  on-going.
• P2 However, religious faith must be decisive,
• final, and involve total commitment.
• P3 Thus, if one proportions one's faith to the
• evidence, religious commitment will be
• postponed forever.

57
Kierkegaard

• Objectivity makes sense in the case of
  mathematics, science, history.
• When we get to questions about how to live,
  objectivity (the perspective of the scientist)
  makes no sense. Its a recipe for a horrible
  life.

58
(No Transcript)