Paper 2
The Role of Reason in Exercising Christian Faith
Matthew B. Scraper
PH 501X1
Philosophy of Religion
Dr. Kevin Kinghorn
Introduction
The question that we are asked to engage for the purpose of this assignment is to
assess what role, if any, reason should play in regard to a person’s decision to exercise
Christian faith. In an attempt to engage this question, I will first seek to propose a working
definition of three key terms, those being “belief,” “faith,” and “reason.” It is my belief that
engaging an adequate working definition of these terms as they relate to the subject of
Christian philosophy will offer an appropriate answer to one manner in which reason can
and must play a role in the individual’s decision to exercise Christian faith.
Defining Belief and Faith
In order to engage this question fully, it is first necessary to enter into a working
definition that offers an appropriate distinction between “belief” and “faith.” I would
submit, as I will seek to further define, that within the context of Christianity, in which we
seek to engage these two terms, belief must precede faith. I will therefore first seek to build
an adequate definition of belief so that the distinction between belief and faith will become
clear. Concerning the nature of belief, William Hasker indicates that a belief is something
for which there is “good reason” to hold to be true.1 It is therefore reasonable to consider
that a belief itself is something that is held to be true by an individual or group of
individuals, based reasons that adequately support the notion that what is believed is very
likely to be true. It must be considered at this point that such reasons may or may not be
based on the individual’s personal experience with the truth that is supported adequately
enough to be held as truth. Rather, it may be more appropriate to consider that a belief, as
1
William Hasker, Metaphysics: Constructing a World View, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1983), 17-19.
such, may be held to be true based on what is known, (or rather perhaps commonly
accepted to be true). While it must be considered that much of what is accepted as true
based on adequate reasons for doing so is likewise based on human experience with what
is accepted to be true, it is also possible to hold something as true that is as of yet not
directly experienced by anyone, but is supported by logical consistency that is reasonable,
in that the premise that serves as the foundation for the logic used to support the belief is
itself commonly held to be true.
What, then, is the distinction between belief and faith? It must be considered that
this distinction is being considered (for the purposes of this assignment) within the context
of Christianity, in which there is sufficient evidence scripturally to shed light on what faith
is to be held as within a Christian context. For such evidence perhaps one of the most
important scriptural references comes from the book of James, where the writer states that
“…someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from
works, and I by my works will show you my faith.”2 Shortly thereafter is the assertion that
only a “senseless” person would assume that faith can exist apart from “works.”3 While
such scriptural references cannot perhaps provide an adequate definition of faith as they
are certainly Christian-specific, they do offer an understanding of what faith is to be
considered as within a Christian context, namely that, as indicated, faith must combine
belief with action. As the writer of James indicates, faith without action cannot be
considered to be faith. Therefore, it should be noted that action is a critical component of
faith for a Christian, but action alone is insufficient for faith to be considered faith. What is
2
3
James 2:18, NRSV.
James 2:20, NRSV.
it that must be acted out in order for the action to be considered to be faith, and not simply
action in and of itself? Based on such scriptural references, it would be appropriate to
assert that for the Christian, the difference between faith and action is that faith is the belief
of the Christian that is acted upon. Therefore faith is more than belief alone, but belief itself
is a critical component of faith, which requires action based on that belief in order to be
considered faith. Faith is therefore highly experiential in nature, and is based on a set of
beliefs regarding the nature and reality of God (in this Christian context) that are held to be
true by the individual Christian or group of Christians.
It would be wise, at this point, to also consider the nature of what is believed to be
true by the Christian, in as much as the nature of that belief is ultimately linked to the
action that is based on it. It must also be acknowledged that arguing the existence or reality
of God, or the experience of the reality of God is not within the scope of this assignment and
will therefore not be attempted here. However, it must be noted that the primary belief that
is to be acted upon by the Christian in order for the combination of belief and action to be
considered to be faith is a belief that is relative to the reality of God, and the experience (or
likelihood of the possibility of an experience) of the reality of God by the believer, to the
extent that the experience of the reality of God, or the belief in the reality of God and
subsequent possibility of real experience related to it by the Christian results in action
(faith) that is consistent with the belief about the reality of God related to the life of the
individual believer or Christian community.
The Role of Reason
If reason is to play a role in the exercise of Christian faith (and I would assert that it
must), then as is suggested by Michael Peterson and others, the question that must be
answered is one of “validation (or invalidation).”4 It is further suggested by Peterson and
others that (in accordance with the notion of critical rationalism) the appropriate method
for validation (or invalidation) is to “look at reasons for and against accepting the belief.”5
These authors note that,“
…at best, such reasons will fall short of conclusive, universally convincing proof, but
that does not mean that they have no value at all. It has been pointed out by George
Mavrodes that in many cases the success of reasons and arguments for a belief is
“person-relative”-that is to say, there are arguments which are convincing for one
person…and yet those same arguments may fail completely for another, equally
intelligent person.6
If proper reason can result in arguments that are “person-relative,” it is essential to
further explore a necessary means of engaging reason relative to belief in God that takes
into account that which reason itself is relative to. As stated within the working definition
for a belief, the reasons that are commonly held to be true which form the foundation for a
belief (which is then acted on as faith) are either based on human experience with what is
accepted to be true because of that experience, or are supported by logical consistency that
is reasonable, in that the premise that serves as the foundation for the logic used to support
the belief is itself commonly held to be true. It is therefore important to note that as human
4
Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason & Religious Belief: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 54.
5
Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger, 63.
6
Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger, 63.
knowledge about what is generally accepted to be true changes (whether that knowledge is
based on either human experience or on logical consistency that is reasonable) then the
belief that is supported by what is held to be true can likewise change. Simply put, the
logical reasoning used to validate or invalidate belief systems is relative to what is
commonly accepted to be true. If what is commonly accepted to be true changes (in any
way) then the logical reasoning that is used to validate or invalidate belief systems must
likewise change, less it become illogical. As human knowledge changes, it must therefore be
considered that human knowledge is incomplete and that should something come to be
known that was previously unknown the logic such knowledge supports must likewise
change. Therefore in order for reason to be used as a means for validating or invalidating
systems of belief, it can only be properly used if it is likewise considered that such logical
reason is based on limited knowledge. Therefore for something (such as a belief in the
reality or the experience of the reality of God) to be adequately addressed by reason, it
must be accounted for that even if sufficient proof for such a belief may not conclusively
reasonably exist, there forever remains the possibility that because human knowledge is
limited, that which is seemingly illogical but claimed (by the believer) through experience
cannot be reasonably conclusively proven to be illogical or unreasonable simply because
the reason that is based on limited human knowledge has the potential to be altered should
that which is currently unknown come to be known. While such reason cannot certainly be
considered to be conclusive convincing proof of the validity of such a belief system or the
experience of it, it must certainly be considered that such a belief system (and
subsequently the faith that results from the action that is based on the experience of it)
cannot be rendered to be reasonably or conclusively invalid simply because the knowledge
that forms the foundation for the reason that is employed to provide validation or
invalidation is itself limited and subject to being altered should that which is presently
unknown come to be known.
Bibliography
Hasker, William. Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. Downers Grove: IVP Academic,
1983.
Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger. Reason &
Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2009.