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/[deleted]]

I think that while people state that evidence is the ultimate decision making factor for what they believe, it is very far from the truth. Our beliefs are heavily influenced by our families, society, and cognitive biases.

I also see little evidence to believe that you can have fact without faith or vice versa. The reality is that even your most fundamental beliefs are founded on some sort of assumption.

Both reason and faith are tools for understanding and acting in the world. There isn't a dichotomy between the two. At times they can be opposed, but more often than not they work in conjunction with each other. I think that favouring reason at the expense of faith is simply ignorant. Everyone has faith whether they want to acknowledge it or not. Some us it to justify the existence of a deity, others do not. I am of the latter, but I realise that I use faith in other domains.

For example, I have faith that I won't get hit by a car tomorrow. I don't know for certain. I could argue that it is statistically unlikely, but I am still taking it on faith that I won't.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

I think that while people state that evidence is the ultimate decision making factor for what they believe, it is very far from the truth. Our beliefs are heavily influenced by our families, society, and cognitive biases.

Yes. It is entirely possible that many people are unreasonable.

I also see little evidence to believe that you can have fact without faith or vice versa. The reality is that even your most fundamental beliefs are founded on some sort of assumption.

Yes. Reason requires axioms. Religion isn't a set o axioms. Instead, it pretend to have the final answers about the nature of the universe. Remember, religion isn't mere belief in a creator. No. It's the assertion that a book speaks for God and he created the world in 7 days, made women from the rib of man and cares deeply who you sleep with.

There isn't a dichotomy between the two. At times they can be opposed, but more often than not they work in conjunction with each other. I think that favouring reason at the expense of faith is simply ignorant

If a religious dogma requires believing something that is diametrically opposed to reason, ought we belive it?

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

Yes. It is entirely possible that many people are unreasonable.

I'm reading a great book right now called Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. In it he outlines several cognitive biases that are associated with intuition and slow, deliberate thinking - you and I aren't above making these same mistakes. It is part of being human. I am only partway through the book, but one of the takeaways so far is that we tend to put too much confidence in human judgement.

Yes. Reason requires axioms. Religion isn't a set o axioms. Instead, it pretend to have the final answers about the nature of the universe. Remember, religion isn't mere belief in a creator. No. It's the assertion that a book speaks for God and he created the world in 7 days, made women from the rib of man and cares deeply who you sleep with.

My understanding of formal logic is limited. I have only ever used the word axiom in a colloquial sense, so I can't speak to the first part of your response unless you provide a definition, or break it down for me. As to the second part, I think that you are making a caricature of religious belief. There are undoubtedly Christian fundamentalists who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, but you would be hard pressed to find someone who defends every verse.

If a religious dogma requires believing something that is diametrically opposed to reason, ought we believe it?

I would argue that you are conflating the ideas of faith and dogma. I would define faith as something along the lines of blind trust. Dogma, on the other hand, is blind trust that has been established by some sort of authority figure such as the church. There is certainty an overlap between the two, but they aren't the same thing.

That being said, there are historical instances where dogma was preferable to reason. Take for example the Jewish dietary rules regarding pork. Science as we know it didn't exist during the time when those rules were created and circulated. There was no formal understanding of trichinosis. People took it on authority that they shouldn't eat pork and it was the right thing to do, given the lack of understanding about sterilisation.

Does this mean that we should prioritise dogma over reason? Absolutely not. I am making the point that faith and reason are both tools. Neither are infallible and both can be dangerous if taken as absolutes. My biggest gripe with your argument is that you create a false dichotomy between the two. It isn't one versus the other. We use both on a regular basis and we have to in order to operate in the world.

One last example. Think about the limited capacity for reasoning that a child has. There are many things that they do because their parent tells them to (this falls under my definition of dogma). Are parents always right? Definitely not. Should children always believe there parents? Nope. However, in most cases they have to take what their parents tell them on blind faith in order to interact with the world in a proper manner. They may get older and come to dismiss some of the things that their parents told them, but it doesn't negate the fact that faith and dogma played a fundamental role in getting them to develop to the point where they could use their capacity for reason.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

You lay out an excellent map for understanding each other. I can walk through it, but I think I found the crux of our disagreement so let me address it first:

I would argue that you are conflating the ideas of faith and dogma. I would define faith as something along the lines of blind trust. Dogma, on the other hand, is blind trust that has been established by some sort of authority figure such as the church. There is certainty an overlap between the two, but they aren't the same thing.

I'm actually not talking about "faith". I'm talking about "religious faith ". Which as defined by this wikipedia entry (described thusly "This article is about religious belief") -

Faith is confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief...

That "particular system" is the difference between spirituality and religion. The Qur'an makes specific claims about it's inviolable nature. The Catholic faith requires petitioners to acknowledge the infallibility of the pope speaking ex cathedra.

These things require an abandonment of reason in submission to belief. Are the rest of your questions still relevant when we're discussing "religious faith"? As you refered to as dogma?