Skip to main content

Thoughts on Faith and Reason

By Ben Love ~

I think a worthy question to ask yourself is this: What is your methodology for arriving at philosophical and spiritual conclusions? Is your methodology neutral? Does it have its own investment in your conclusion? Does your methodology include a pre-established bias? And if so, can you really, truthfully say that your conclusions, whatever they may be, were formed responsibly? Did you have a premise through which you filtered the evidence, or did you let the evidence form your premise? This is an important question for anyone on the road toward truth. How do you determine truth? You must have a methodology by which you do this; otherwise, you’re not really doing anything but shooting the shit about “possibilities.” If you truly want to know if there is a God or isn’t one, which religion is right (if any), what the truth is, and how to reach it, then do this: remove all the premises. Do not filter the evidence through anything. Let it be whatever it is. Let it say whatever it is saying. Go where it leads. And let the evidence form your premise rather than letting your premise infect the evidence. That is the best methodology, because it is the most responsible. Oh, and by the way, there is a name for this kind of methodology. It’s called Reason.

Faith, on the other hand, may be helpful to the one possessing it, may make him feel good and fulfilled, and may engender a sense of peace and security within him—all of which is totally fine—but one thing it is not is responsible. I cannot be. No matter how much you might value your faith, it cannot be responsible. Why not? Faith, by its very nature, is invested with your personal feelings on any given matter. If the matter in question is something intangible like God, then your faith is not impartial. It is biased. It exists because you have chosen for it to exist, and thus it will work to preserve itself, or you will work to preserve it. You therefore can no longer look at any issue objectively if you are wearing your faith lens. And this is the very heart and soul of intellectual irresponsibility.

Reason asks for evidence. Faith, by definition, doesn’t need evidence. If it did, it wouldn’t be faith. After all, faith is defined as a belief in something for which there is no justifiable proof. If proof existed, we’d be talking about a “fact,” not “faith.” Therefore, you cannot have both faith and evidence; you can only have one or the other. Thus, faith is based on a foundation other than evidence. What is that foundation? Through my research, I found that foundation to be composed of personal interest, emotional need, societal expectations, religious fervor, the transmission of faulty information, selective bias, private agendas, inherited traditions, theological indoctrination (what you might call good, old-fashioned brainwashing), and, at times, fear. I don’t say these things to insinuate that anyone possessing religious faith is proceeding from an errant starting point; I only mean to assert that since faith is not and cannot be based on an evidential foundation, it must be based on something else, and that “something else” is usually invested with much more dubious set of motives. 

Reason, on the other hand, is neutral. It has no biases. It has no agendas. There are no personal interests at stake. Reason simply says, “Here is the data, be responsible with it.” As such, reason is impartial. It doesn’t have any investment in the outcome of your investigation. It does not hope to sway you in one direction over another. It doesn’t seek to preserve itself by influencing your conclusions. It is therefore far more responsible than faith.

And what does faith really point to outside the individual mind? When you die, your faith dies with you, since your faith is something that is happening within the synapses of your own brain. It has no permanence outside of your individual existence. The Universe existed before you and your faith appeared on the scene, and it will exist when you and your faith have vanished. Truth, on other hand, if it is exists at all, is eternal. Truth is what it is regardless who is here to believe it or even recognize it. Put ten different scientists in a room and you might still have some differing conclusions, but you at least have ten people all moving in the same direction, following the evidence where it would lead, observing the measurable facts, and coming to some sort of cohesive understanding. Science has persevered because scientists, by and large, are coming together in unity, usually arriving at the same or at least at close conclusions. And this is exactly what you would expect with truth. If truth is observable and discernible, you would expect differing people all across the board to basically arrive at the same conclusion. But with an untruth, you would expect all sorts of crazy and varying conclusions, which is exactly what you have with religious faith.

Reason, therefore, is safer. It is surer. It is worthier of attention because reason leads the way. With faith, our predisposed conceptions of what our faith is already in leads the way, and that is dangerous.

Regarding these matters, a friend of mine recently said to me that my conclusions are just as biased as his are. You know what? He is absolutely correct. Any conclusion is, by definition, biased. Why? Because if you concluded something at all, you must be biased that you had a reason to do so. The question is not whether a conclusion is biased or not, because all conclusions are biased. The question is this: When was the bias was formed? Did you start with it and then filter the evidence through it? Or did you let the evidence form the bias? Those are your only two options. And one is worthier than the other, because it is more responsible than the other

Faith [...] may be helpful to the one possessing it [...], but one thing it is not is responsible. And that is really what it's all about: being responsible, keeping your personal investments out of the matter. After all, if you start with “I believe in God,” and then examine the evidence, isn’t it possible that you will view the evidence through the lens of your premise, the lens of your faith? If, however, you start with “I neither believe nor disbelieve in God; I am merely curious at this point,” and then you examine the evidence, isn’t it far likelier that you will arrive at the correct conclusion since you have no motive for arriving at one over other? 

These were the concepts that I began to wrestle with in the days just before my de-conversion. I finally, fully knew that religious faith was bankrupt, shipwrecked, and the sole source of all my spiritual woes over the years. I had been caught in a cycle of belief that never took me anywhere because there was nowhere to go. This is because faith wants to be preserved. The very idea of something being preserved seems to imply a kind of stagnation, a “don’t rock the boat” mentality. There is no room for evolution, for molting, for graduating from one sphere of knowledge into another. No, faith demands that you stay plugged into that object in which it is placed, even if you have no proof of that object to begin with. Faith is therefore, in a sense, the termination of all creative questions and inquisitive musings. Faith simply says, “This is how it is, accept it. Do not ask why. Do not seek a better explanation. Do not ask if there is proof. Just accept it and write off your doubts as useless distractions. No other answer is forthcoming.” 


Popular posts from this blog


By David Andrew Dugle ~ O ctober. Halloween. It's time to visit the haunted house I used to live in. When I was five my dad was able to build a big modern house. Moving in before it was complete, my younger brother and I were sleeping in a large unfinished area directly under the living room. It should have been too new to be a haunted house, but now and then I would wake up in the tiny, dark hours and see the blurry image of a face, or at least what I took to be a face, glowing, faintly yellow, high up on the wall near the ceiling. I'm not kidding! Most nights it didn’t appear at all. But when it did show itself, at first I thought it was a ghost and it scared me like nothing else I’d ever seen. But the face never did anything; unmoving, it just stayed in that one spot. Turning on the lights would make it disappear, making my fears difficult to explain, so I never told anyone. My Sunday School teachers had always told me to be good because God was just behind m

The Blame Game or Shit Happens

By Webmdave ~ A relative suffering from Type 1 diabetes was recently hospitalized for an emergency amputation. The physicians hoped to halt the spread of septic gangrene seeping from an incurable foot wound. Naturally, family and friends were very concerned. His wife was especially concerned. She bemoaned, “I just don’t want this (the advanced sepsis and the resultant amputation) to be my fault.” It may be that this couple didn’t fully comprehend the seriousness of the situation. It may be that their choice of treatment was less than ideal. Perhaps their home diabetes maintenance was inconsistent. Some Christians I know might say the culprit was a lack of spiritual faith. Others would credit it all to God’s mysterious will. Surely there is someone or something to blame. Someone to whom to ascribe credit. Isn’t there? A few days after the operation, I was talking to a man who had family members who had suffered similar diabetic experiences. Some of those also suffered ea

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

Reasons for my disbelief

By Rebekah ~ T here are many layers to the reasons for my disbelief, most of which I haven't even touched on here... When I think of Evangelical Christianity, two concepts come to mind: intense psychological traps, and the danger of glossing over and missing a true appreciation for the one life we know that we have. I am actually agnostic when it comes to a being who set creation in motion and remains separated from us in a different realm. If there is a deistic God, then he/she doesn't particularly care if I believe in them, so I won't force belief and instead I will focus on this one life that I know I have, with the people I can see and feel. But I do have a lot of experience with the ideas of God put forth by Evangelical Christianity, and am confident it isn't true. If it's the case god has indeed created both a physical and a heavenly spiritual realm, then why did God even need to create a physical realm? If the point of its existence is to evolve to pas

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two