The man of reason should not be celebrated more than the man of faith. Likewise, the man of faith holds no victory over the man of reason. To be frank, to even consider this question to be of great importance is to prove one's own ignorance. Indeed, I even question myself for choosing to add to the discussion, but the topic was of interest. The basic point I can think to press is that faith and reason go hand in hand, despite many efforts to make them contradictory. Neither side holds all the answers, and anyone who claims to only abide to what is reasonable, or who sits by idly and waits for their faith to carry them, is arrogant in their thinking.

It is not that I do not believe in miracles (or coincidence if you prefer); it is just that it is obvious miracles do not always occur when we want them to. The reason behind this, we will likely never know. But that leads to my belief that in is not acting without faith to take action in a situation. It is not foolish for a Christian to go to the doctor when they are sick, even as they pray for the physicians hands to be blessed. Although God may work a miracle, it is all too apparent that people sometimes die despite our prayers, our medicine, and our every other effort. For the man of faith to lay claim to supremacy because he has found "truth" is as foolish as the man of reason to declare that he knows with certainty that when life ends it is merely like a light switch turning off.

Neither side can lay claim to any kind of supremacy over the other. The greatest benefit is found when the two sides are reconciled. Logic and reason alone are not enough to satisfy any search for deeper truth, because the seeker will never cease to dig. Faith is the basis of the promises of religion, but while it is argued whether faith alone gains one entrance to heaven, it can't be debated that faith alone is of little benefit to a society. As a Christian, I have often illustrated this by suggesting that an atheist who spends two nights a week volunteering at a homeless shelter, and who lives a humble life is closer to God's kingdom than a professed Christian who has cheated their way to the top of their organization, and who flaunts their wealth and refuses to part with any of it.

We should not celebrate either side of this argument because to boil a man down to some set of criteria is much too simplistic. For sure, the man of reason has faith that certain things will happen. Even the atheist is holding onto faith that some sort of eternity does not exist, while the believer often struggles to live out their internal faith in some tangible way so that others may know. The greatest point is that faith is sufficient for the individual, but must become tangible to be of any benefit to the world. Reason may help the individual to cope and understand, but still leaves more things unanswered than answered. It is at this point where we can find solace in faith - being able to give those unanswered concerns over to God, and focusing our energy on being of benefit to the world around me.

Learn more about this author, Dan Mason.
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!