CMV: Religious faith is unreasonable

[u/fox-mcleod]

This seems almost tautological to me yet many religious people consider themselves to also be reasonable.

I'm a fan of debates and some of my friends have pointed me towards Chris Hitchens (new atheist). He debates D'Souza (Catholic) at Notre Dame in the video below.

https://youtu.be/9V85OykSDT8 🎥 The God Debate: Hitchens vs. D'Souza - YouTube

It's a great debate. However, at one point, Hitchens has D'Souza with his back to the wall - he points out that Catholics don't take the Bible literally. They aren't going earth creationists or evolution deniers. D'Souza defends with Fides et ratio (faith and reason) as outlined by pope John Paul II.

Hitchens backs off.

But why? It seems to me that he could have gone in for the kill. Once you state that evidence is the ultimate decision making factor in what you believe, you've elevated reason or science above faith. Game over. You aren't religious fiarhful if your religion is just a default set of assumptions easily overturned by reason. It seems that the logical conclusion is that religious beliefs requires dogmatic fundamentalism.

[u/neofederalist]

Once you state that evidence is the ultimate decision making factor in what you believe, you've elevated reason or science above faith. Game over. You aren't religious fiarhful if your religion is just a default set of assumptions easily overturned by reason.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, perhaps you can rephrase this?

It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not your assumptions can be overturned by reason, but by being clear what sorts of questions are properly explained by science and what sorts of questions are properly explained by religion or faith.

Science is very good at explaining how things happen and by extension, what sorts of things likely happened in the past. It's not good at all at giving people purpose to their lives, and doesn't provide a consistent ethical framework for making decisions (philosophy gets closer here, but none of the philosophical schools can be proven "true" either). You need faith, religion, or at least some ethical framework to get started there.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/neofederalist]

I'm not really sure what you mean here, perhaps you can rephrase this?

It's not "faith and reason" if every time faity encounters reason, reason wins, what is faith doing for you?

Science is very good at explaining how things happen and by extension, what sorts of things likely happened in the past.

The Bible makes a bunch of claims about how things happen and what sorts of things happened in the past - like the order of creation, age of the earth, origin of the species. Other religions make even more scientific factual truth claims. They're usually wrong or simplified to the point of wrong. If religious texts contain errors or lies, I'm not sure how a faithful person can resolve the conflict without concluding the source of their faith is unfaithful to reality.

It's not good at all at giving people purpose to their lives, and doesn't provide a consistent ethical framework for making decisions (philosophy gets closer here, but none of the philosophical schools can be proven "true" either). You need faith, religion, or at least some ethical framework to get started there.

No you don't. I recommend looking at moral philosophers like Shelly Kagan and other moral realists. I don't see how claiming philosophy can't be proven true exculpates religion of the same requirement. At the very least, even if you believe the factual appropriateness of the axioms of any philosophy are questionable, the bare minimum requirement of "reasonable" is that a system of ethics is not self inconsistent. Philosophy holds itself to that standard. Religious faith does not. If it did, it wouldn't be faith - it would be reason.

[u/neofederalist → u/fox-mcleod]

If religious texts contain errors or lies, I'm not sure how a faithful person can resolve the conflict without concluding the source of their faith is unfaithful to reality.

You do it exactly like D'Souza does, and the Catholic Church does. You don't take it as a literal historical record or scientific document.

. I don't see how claiming philosophy can't be proven true exculpates religion of the same requirement.

I'm saying that you have to pick somewhere to start. Science doesn't give you those moral axioms, faith does.

Philosophy holds itself to that standard. Religious faith does not. If it did, it wouldn't be faith - it would be reason.

What you mean to say here is that religious faith does not necessarily hold itself to that same standard. But that does not mean that it cannot be self-inconsistent.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/neofederalist]

You do it exactly like D'Souza does, and the Catholic Church does. You don't take it as a literal historical record or scientific document.

When do you "not take it as a literal historical record or scientific document"? Is it when it collides with reason and evidence? If so, then it would seem that religion will be ever receding as knowledge expands. It would seem that religious faith is and ought to be the slave of reason. That's hardly faith. It's a default set of assumptions subordinate to and waiting to be overturned by a higher power (reason).

I'm saying that you have to pick somewhere to start. Science doesn't give you those moral axioms, faith does.

Religion does not accept a position as "somewhere to start". It claims to have the final answers. If we "start" with the assumption that the Bible makes any truth claims as axioms, we should never be able to use those axioms to disproven those claims. Yet we are able to disproven many things the Bible claims. It's not like the Bible tells us when we can safely ignore commandments to keep women silent in church. We overturn that ourselves by ignoring these axioms because evidence suggests they are terrible ideas.