4 of 26

Write now Article Tools

Faith, by necessity, is to some degree blind. There is a difference between having faith that something will happen and concluding that it is likely based on a reasoned analysis of probabilities. To have faith is to have conviction, belief that something is, was, or will be. Faith is by its very nature dogmatic, because it insists on its own truth without consideration of alternatives; contemplating that other possibilities might be correct is an automatic breach of that faith. The fundamental difference between faith and reason, or science, therefore, is that a scientist seeks always to falsify his or her hypotheses, to find not proof for theories, but reasons why those theories cannot hold. A person of faith, on the other hand, is by the nature of their beliefs biased to seek out evidence that supports their theories, and indeed to interpret any and all evidence in such a manner. Hence, faith can never be objective, while reason holds objectivity as its very core. As human beings, we are flawed; our cognitive processes are influenced by a mass of self-serving biases designed to protect our self-esteem and well-being. It is our nature to seek confirmation of our own opinions, theories, or beliefs. We are not logical creatures. Faith is therefore more natural to humans than is reason, but what is natural is not always what is good. Faith is a cognitive limitation which reason attempts to overcome; hence, if we accept that psychosocial evolution, cognitive development, and personal advancement are fundamental utilities, we must surely agree too that a reasoned, scientific approach to the universe is superior to a passive acceptance of our intellectual limits.

However, this argument contains a major flaw from the point of view of the subjectivist or anti-realist: there is no objective reason to think that an attempt to supercede our primate limitations is an important or desirable goal. Reason itself, by virtue of arguments relating to parsimony, and scientific evidence to date, indicates that there is no objective 'good', no prescribed morality to which we must all be bound. Therefore, one must choose one's own goals and be judged accordingly. A person of faith whose goal is to live a life in accordance with their belief system and be in a position, accorsding to those beliefs, to enter a coveted afterlife, has achieved as highly as a scientist to successfully proves a theorum, when judged by his or her own standards. And how else can we choose to judge? In this sense, the question of whether reason or faith should be more celebrated becomes meaningless; the answer is in the eye of the celebrant, and thus entirely subjective.

Learn more about this author, Kl Schofield.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Why the 'man of reason' should be celebrated more than the 'man of faith'?
We want to hear your view. Write now!