AS Philosophy
Module 2
Philosophy
Of
Religion
Unit 3
Faith
1
The Nature of Faith
Introduction
Central to the debate between belief-in and belief-that is the concept of faith. To have faith in
something is to have trust in it: "I have faith that you will pass your exams", "The England
Cricket captain put his faith in the weatherman and elected to bat", and so on. However, faith
does not necessarily imply knowledge and has in fact often been held up as a contrasting thing to
it.
So, what do we mean by religious faith? St Thomas Aquinas argued that it lay somewhere
between knowledge and opinion. For Aquinas, knowledge was beyond doubt, whilst opinion was
a matter of choice. From this point of view the most certain things are logically necessary
propositions - such as that "A is A" or "2+2=4".
However, if I say, "There must be life on some planet somewhere in the universe", it is only a
matter of opinion. For such a thing to be true I would have to wait for technology to develop to a
level where it could test this theory - up until then it is only probable (to whatever degree).
Faith, then, comes midway between these two extremes. I have no evidence for my opinion that
there is life on some distant planet somewhere, but I may still choose to believe it despite the
lack of evidence. If we view religious belief in this way we would define having faith as
"choosing to believe that something is the case despite a lack of evidence" - or, "choosing to
believe that the evidence for a thing being true is sufficient".
History
Besides Aquinas' view - that faith is propositional and comes mid-way between belief and
opinion - there have been varying approaches to the problem. The following sections will look at
three of them:
(a) Pascal's Wager - the French philosopher thought that evidence for God's existence
and atheism was equal, and that the decision of whether or not to believe in God was so
important as to represent a "wager" or "bet" which we must take.
(b) The Will to believe - The American philosopher William James considered the
notion of faith to be more than a matter of evidence. Whether a person believes in God or
not, he argued, was more a matter of whether the idea was a "live option" for them regardless of how much evidence there was.
(c) Non-propositional Faith - the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard believed that
no rational argument could decide the question of God's existence - and in fact that
reason and faith were complete opposites.
2
Two further options will be discussed in their own sections later on. These are:
(d) Verification - A. J. Ayer believed that only language which could be "verified", or
backed up by experience, was meaningful. Therefore, if religious language could not be
verified - and he believed it couldn't - it was no better than nonsense.
(e) Language Games - Ludwig Wittgenstein, who had himself influenced Ayer's views,
later came to change his mind about how language works. In his later philosophy he
proposed an alternative view which was very influential in philosophy of religion,
claiming that religious statements had meaning not in verifiability, but in the context they
were intended to be used.
Exercises
1. Can faith be distinguished from knowledge, or is it possible to claim faith as a sort of
knowing? See if you can find examples of what you would call faith that might support either
side.
Faith as a sort of knowing
Faith as separate from
knowledge
2. Question: How would you define knowledge? If there did turn out to be life on that distant
planet, could I be said to have known it? (Clue: think of the triangle we studied in TOK)
3. Discussion point: A sceptic might argue that we can never be sure that our senses are not
deceiving us (think of Descartes' dreaming or demon arguments). Is there a sense in which we
have faith in them? Is it possible to have knowledge without faith?
4. Discussion point: Is it necessary to have evidence for faith at all? What about from Aquinas's
point of view?
3
Pascal’s Wager
The "wager" argument for religious belief was produced by the French philosopher and
mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) in his Pensees. Although a prodigious philosopher and
mathematician, Pascal devoted much of his life to theology and religious speculation, claiming
that the use of his gifts for mathematics alone would have been a sin against God.
Pascal's argument is a simple one: reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether
God exists or not; therefore, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most
should we be right. Accordingly, the options would be as follows:
1. You may live a religious and moral life and be rewarded by eternal happiness.
2. You may live a pleasure-seeking life and be denied eternal happiness.
3. You may live a holy life but there is actually no God or eternal life.
4. You may live a pleasure-seeking life but it makes no difference because there is no
God.
For Pascal, the first of these options is the most important one because it represents the
maximum gain and loss. Even if it should turn out that there is no God, the sheer risk of deciding
against such a possibility warrants that we should take that option.
Discussion points:
1. Pascal believes that reason cannot decide one way or the other that God does or does not exist.
What do you think he means by this? Do you agree? If you think he is wrong, what evidence
might conclusively prove God’s existence?
2. Do you agree with Pascal that not believing in God entails the greatest risk? What about other
religions - should we take their ideas of punishment for non-believers into account?
3. Should faith be based on self-interest? If I choose to do a good act because it provides me with
the best chances of reward, am I really a good person?
4. In what way might Pascal's Wager be antagonistic to religious belief? Can religious faith be
simply a matter of choosing the right option? Think of possible objections to this view.
The Will To Believe
William James (1842-1910), American psychologist and philosopher, tried to establish a similar
view to Pascal. The similarity between the views is that the question of belief is more a case of
"What's at stake?" than "Can it be rationally proven?"
4
This is not to say, however, that belief is only a matter of what James's terms a "passional
decision" - that is, one based on our passions or emotions - because evidence for a particular
belief must also form part of our choice.
So, from this point of view, Pascal's definition of belief simply as "momentous choice" is
insufficient, for we must also decide whether the evidence for our belief is enough to convince us
of its truth. For example, two people might decide, based on the same evidence, that God does
and doesn't exist. James would argue here that the evidence itself is almost irrelevant because it
is whether the idea is "alive" in the first place which has mainly influenced the two different
reactions.
The argument states that belief can be seen in terms of what are called "live and dead
hypotheses". For example, the hypothesis that life exists on other planets might be totally
uninteresting to a businessman whose time was eaten up by running his organisation; a NASA
scientist, on the other hand, would most likely be very interested.
So, in choosing between two hypotheses or options - such as "God exists" and "God does not
exist" - it is argued that we must consider three things:
1. Is the option forced? When a choice can be avoided it is not necessary to make a
decision. If, for instance, I have to choose whether to live or die, the option is forced there is no third alternative. However, if I have to choose whether to go for a walk or to
watch TV, there are probably many other options - such as reading a book or playing
cards.
2. Is the option living? If one or both of my choices are uninteresting or impossible, then
the option can be said to be dead. Should I become Prince of Thailand, meet Einstein or
fly to the moon? These options are less likely to be living if achieving them is very
unlikely, impossible or absurd. Furthermore, if I am not particularly interested in any of
the options, then my heart is not in the choice.
3. Is the option momentous? Certain choices may present themselves once in a lifetime
or only under very special circumstances. Other options may involve making a drastic
change in one's life - such as marriage, having children, running away from home, etc. If
a choice is easily undone, or has little effect, then it cannot be said to be momentous.
Furthermore, the two things that dictate how we form our beliefs are:
1. Our desire to know the truth.
2. Our fear of falling into error.
Whilst the first principle leads us to formulate hypotheses, the second keeps us from asserting to
beliefs which do not appear absolutely certain. These two drives are seen as so ingrained in
human nature as to be almost innate.
5
Exercise
Rate the following options as to how many of James’ criteria they meet.
Example
Forced
?
Living?
Momentous?
Meeting Napoleon
Climbing Mount Everest
Going to the shops
Getting married
Having a tattoo
Catching a bus
Buying a dog
Discussion Points:
1. Does religious belief have to meet these 3 criteria?
2. Does thinking of religious belief in this way make it more probable?
3. Does this view of belief do away with the need for proof or provide us with a guide to a
certain belief's truth?
Non-propositional Faith
In reviewing the different attitudes to faith we have been gradually moving away from reliance
upon what we might call 'propositional truth'. Such a thing necessarily involves things that have
at least some possibility of being proven. So, the statement "God exists" is seen as something
that a particular experience - whether now or at some point in the future (even after death) - can
be proven true.
However, our discussion of Pascal and William James has brought us some way towards a
different attitude to religious belief. From certain perspectives propositional truth is seen as
unnecessary - even harmful. Such a view was held by the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard
(1813-55). The basis for this view was his assertion that no objective knowledge was possible
because things were always open to sceptical doubt and changing interpretation. In this way he
came to be seen as the first Existentialist philosopher, influencing later figures such as Jean-Paul
Sartre.
From this point of view, the main question in life is not "What can we know?" or "What is
knowledge?", but "What shall we do?" Since it is possible to view things in different ways, the
emphasis is not on 'finding out' what things are like, but of choosing between various options.
Since this choice leaves us with feelings of overwhelming responsibility and doubt - or "dread"
and "despair" to use existentialist terms - the only real option is to have faith.
6
Accordingly, reason cannot provide a solution to our problems because there are no absolute
standards by which to judge whether we are correct (we might think of sceptical arguments such
as the "problem of induction", where things are only ever probable). Hence, faith is not reliant
upon propositions - such as "God will answer my prayers" (which, if it were taken as a
proposition or statement of fact, might lead us to think that God doesn't exist).
Exercise
Can we have faith without reason? Think of examples.
Example
Discussion points:
1. Does this view make it possible for anyone to believe anything?
2. Does this view solve the problems associated with religious belief (such as the lack of
evidence, the problem of evil, etc.)?
Basic Beliefs
The American philosopher Alvin Plantinga (1932 - present) gave another angle on the notion of
non-prepositional belief. Plantinga’s view states that belief in God does not require any evidence
because it is a ‘basic belief’. This means that although there may be evidence to back up such a
belief, it does not rely on this evidence for its truth (this view is called fideism – of which, more
later).
For instance, I may believe that I can see a car at the end of the road. I do not need evidence to
back this up because for me the evidence of my senses is “sufficiently warranted”. However, if I
were to be asked if there were a car at the end of the road without looking, I may say that there is
because someone has told me so. In this case, my belief would have “transferred warranty” from
my trust in my friend.
7
Exercise
Think of examples of beliefs which are in themselves “sufficiently warranted” and ones which
have “transferred warranty”.
Examples
Sufficient
Warranty
Transferred
Warranty
I can see that it is raining
The Earth is round
Water is wet
Brazil is the largest coffee producing nation
in the world
Love is a rollercoaster
Problems
This view seems tempting, but it is open to the same criticisms as any form of fideism – namely,
what constitutes a basic belief? How is it justified? Does this mean that any sort of nonpropositional belief may be called ‘basic’ – and therefore be beyond criticism?
Other forms of basic belief – such as that the world exists, I am conscious, etc. – have a more
immediate reality and can be experienced. However, with the existence of God, if it was a basic
belief, wouldn’t everyone believe it (as with the other examples)?
Homework
The notion of "basic beliefs" wants to argue that the existence of God is an assumption that
should not be questioned. Using journals, the Internet, etc., try to find out more about this
viewpoint and summarise your findings in the form of a for and against argument (good
keywords to use when searching are "plantinga", "fideism" and "basic beliefs").
8