Pillar
#1: A dichotomy between Faith and Reason
"See to it that no
one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on
human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" – Colossians 2:8
A lot has happened since my last
post. Frank Turek has an excellent article on Christian Post about how we are
now losing freedoms and being forced by the courts into submission to the
religious fundamentalism of Secular Humanism. Check it out here. In Part-2 of
my series on Secular Fundamentalism I introduced you to the pope of this
religious movement Paul Kurtz. Paul Kurtz's latest dogmas can be found in
Humanist Manifesto 2000. I want to focus this post on the first pillar of
Secular Fundamentalism which I alluded to in part-2:
"Professor Paul Kurtz 27
years later drafted Humanist Manifesto 2000 and called Humanism “a nontheistic
philosophical and scientific viewpoint that could not be equated with religious
faith.”[1] Just because Kurtz states in 2000 that Humanism cannot be “equated
with religious faith” what he called “religious” in 1973 does not make it so.
What’s more, Kurtz is presupposing a dualism between faith and reason asserting
that all religious faith is totally divorced from reason; hence, all faith is
unreasonable and unscientific. For Kurtz reason is in a separate compartment
where he believes that humanism resides, along with the modern scientific
method, totally devoid of faith. Using this false dichotomy between faith and
reason Kurtz then asserts that his atheistic view of reality is the only view
that is reasonable and scientific; thus, requiring no faith."
Kurtz’s view that there exists a
dualism between faith and reason is a powerful orthodoxy that typifies both the
modern & post-modern era. Ever since philosopher Immanuel Kant built the
wall of separation between the physical phenomenal world that we experience in
our space-time continuum and the metaphysical noumenal world that we do not
experience, the tools of reason have been thought to belong on this material
side of the wall only. Kant’s epistemology synthesizes the empiricists’ a
posteriori position that knowledge is gained through experience, and the
rationalists’ position that there exists an a priori dimension of knowledge.
Kant stressed that all knowledge is gained through the senses via experience
and placed into a priori categories in the mind that helps one individuate the
data.[2] The Ding an sich, or thing-in-itself, really exists in the
metaphysical world but our knowledge of it is beyond the reach of our senses;
thus, God may exist but can never be perceived.[3] The phenomenal world that we
sense is where we apply the laws of reason that our mind knows a priori,
however, these laws can never be applied to God in the metaphysical world that
we cannot perceive. For example, if the principle of causality, one of the laws
of reason in my mind, inform me that a Necessary Being (i.e., God), must exist,
that does not mean that in actuality God does exist. This is why Kant was
considered an epistemological agnostic in that you cannot know for sure that
God exists because the principle of causality does not apply to the
metaphysical world. In short, the tools of reason are applied to the physical
world and faith is applied to the metaphysical world.
Kant’s wall of separation between
the knowable phenomenal world and the supposedly unknowable noumenal world is
self-falsifying in that one cannot build a wall between two realms without
knowing something about both. How do you know where to place the wall? In other
words, to say that true reality is unknowable is to make a knowable statement
about reality—that it is unknowable; thus, if you cannot know then how do you
know?[4] Furthermore, Kant’s application of reason and inquiry to only this
world is puzzling. As Christian philosopher Dr. R.C. Sproul rhetorically asks,
“If everything in the phenomenal world requires a cause, why does not the
phenomenal world itself require a cause?”[5]
The Biblical View of FAITH &
REASON
“Faith does not destroy reason,
but goes far beyond it and perfects it”— Thomas Aquinas
A lot of Christian's hold the
false view of a dichotomy between faith and reason without really understanding
the implications of it. In fact this view of faith is not the biblical view.
Christianity does not, never did and never will, support blind faith! There are
two tools that everyone, Christian or non-Christian has in order to grasp
reality: (1) FAITH (2) REASON. Like Michael Jackson wearing just one glove will
never give one a full grasp of reality--he he. You heard his voice didn't
you?--Sorry!
The Biblical definition of FAITH
can be found in the book of Hebrews. "Now faith is being sure of what we
hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were
commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's
command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible….And without
faith it is impossible to please God because anyone who comes to Him must
believe that He exists." - Hebrews 11:1-3, 6
The Greek words used in this verse
are very interesting. Let's take a look:
#1 “being sure” – Gk: hupostasis =
A mental assurance
#2 “faith” – Gk: pistis = Has 3
basic elements:
- The 1st entails ‘knowledge’ and
knowledge is when the knower & the known become one
- The 2nd involves ‘agreement’
(This demonstrates oneness)
- The two of these are meaningless
without the 3rd element ‘TRUST’
I personally do not have enough
faith to be an Atheist!
Now let's apply this verse and
demonstrate the partial overlap view of FAITH & REASON:
(A) Truths of Reason and not of
Faith: Not revealed by God but provable by reason; for example, 2+2=4 or “I am
teaching at class today”—Which is proved by reason now because you can see me
but is proved by both faith and reason tomorrow as you tell a friend that I
spoke here today.
(B) Truths of Faith and not of
Reason: Things revealed by God but not provable by reason; for example, the
Trinity. However, these views must not contradict reason.
(C) Truths of both Faith and Reason:
These may be revealed by God but provable by reason; for example, the existence
of God. This is what we call “Natural Theology”. This view is beautifully
articulated in the book of Romans:
"For since the creation of
the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse " - Romans 1:20
Two Types of Science That Prove
the Partial Overlap View
The faith-reason false dichotomy
has its root in a misunderstanding of the two types of science: operation
science and origin science. Operation science deals with empirical scientific
data by observing and drawing conclusions from present regularities. On the
other hand, origin science is a type of forensic science that deals with past
singularities.[6] However, operation science and origin science work
hand-in-hand through the principle of uniformity which holds that the present
is the key to unlocking the past.
Through the principle of
uniformity, built on the principle of causality, I can know something about the
metaphysical world by drawing from the physical world. The principle of
uniformity states that only Necessary Being can produce or cause contingent
being, which entails: (A) The effect must resemble the cause, since both are
being, hence, the cause of being cannot produce what it does not possess; (B)
While the effect must resemble the cause of its being, it is different from its
cause in that it is contingent.[7] Therefore, there is an analogical likeness
between the cause and the effect that we can discern using the tools of reason.
The apostle Paul makes this point in his letter to the Romans, “For since the
creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine
nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made….”[8]
Paul stresses that the entire world can know something about God by observing
the natural world with the analytical tools of reason.
Even if one allowed for this false
dichotomy between faith and reason, an atheistic view of reality that
presupposes naturalism, in the end, still requires faith. Faith is not
something that is based solely on reason, then it would not be faith; however,
faith is something that should be supported by reason.[9] For example, secular
fundamentalists may believe by abductive reasoning—an inference to the best
explanation—that the scientific data observable in the world shows that it is
reasonable to believe that God does not exist; nonetheless, this view ends in
the realm of faith. As a matter of fact, a growing number of philosophers and
scientists looking at the scientific evidence and using abductive reasoning
come to a different conclusion; namely, that it is reasonable to believe that a
theistic God exists.
A Metaphysical Sleight of Hand
The secular fundamentalist falsely
builds on this philosophy of a separation of faith and reason by placing every
theistic or deistic metaphysical claim about reality into a box labeled
‘religion’ while at the same time placing only atheism[10] into a box labeled
‘science.’ The religion box is then placed into the faith realm where truth
claims are subjective and a matter of personal preference given the secularist
view that objective knowledge of the noumenal realm cannot be known. On the
other hand, the science box is placed in the reason realm where the tools of
reason can be applied in discovering truth. The metaphysical game employed here
is that science’s metaphysical claim of atheism is bypassed by making atheism
part of the very definition of reason. Leading proponent of Intelligent Design
theory Phillip Johnson writes about this metaphysical sleight of hand in his
book Reason in the Balance:
Modernist discourse accordingly
incorporates semantic devices—such as the labeling of theism as “religion” and
naturalism as “science”—that work to prevent a dangerous debate of fundamental
assumptions from breaking out in the open.[11]
Dan Crawford from the University
of Nebraska reveals this categorical bias when evaluating the arguments of
Phillip Johnson, who argues against this atheistic presumption in science, and
philosopher Robert Pennock who argues for it. Pennock writes of the wall of
separation between the two realms and the faulty assertion that scientists work
in the rational real world and priests and theologians work in the irrational
spiritual world. Crawford writes that:
Science is then awarded exclusive
authority over the natural realm, while the spiritual realm falls under the
jurisdiction of the theologian or priest. A second and more subtle part of this
proposal is that the natural realm is identified with the real and the
rational, while the spiritual realm is judged to be unreal (or not fully real)
and irrational (or not fully rational).[12]
Crawford goes on to note that
“Pennock favors this view that religion belongs to another realm.”[13]
However, the view held by the
atheist that scientific methods in the physical real world are the only sources
of knowledge is a view that itself cannot be established by the scientific
method. Furthermore, the very notion that scientific knowledge is limited to
naturalistic (i.e., atheistic), evolution commits the fallacy of ‘begging the
question.’ Also circular reasoning is employed when one assumes atheism in the
definition of science and then asserts that the theist is the only one making
religious statements that are outside of the realm of science and reason. This
metaphysical sleight of hand is exactly what the philosophers and scientists in
the Intelligent Design movement have committed themselves to exposing.
Conversions From Secular Faith
A religious conversion from
atheism to theism has been on the rise among scientists and philosophers due to
exciting developments in the fields of astronomy and biology. In response to
the growing number of philosophers and scientists that believe that the
universe came into being by an intelligent cause, Kurtz dogmatically states
that:
Neither the standard modern
cosmology nor the evolutionary process provides sufficient evidence for
intelligent design, which is a leap of faith beyond the empirical evidence.[14]
Nevertheless, Oxford University
evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, fellow secular fundamentalist and
signer of Humanist Manifesto 2000, is quoted in London’s The Daily Telegraph as
saying that, “I believe, but cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all
creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect
product of Darwinian natural selection.”[15] Dawkins statement “I believe, but
cannot prove” is an accurate picture of the atheist’s “leap of faith,” the same
faith that Professor Kurtz and those that share his secular worldview have in
common. Additionally, Antony Flew, the famous philosophical atheist and signer
of Humanist Manifesto II, recently changed his position of faith to accepting
the existence of God based on the evidence derived from intelligent design. The
Associated Press reported on December 9, 2004 that:
At age 81, and after decades of
insisting that belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of
intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. Super-intelligence
is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of
nature. . . Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some
similarity with American “Intelligent Design” theorists, who see evidence for a
guiding force in the construction of the universe.[16]
Antony Flew just took his name off
of the deed to the secular house that he has been so prominent in building.
This conversion from Atheism to Theism would be like Billy Graham converting to
Atheism after spending his entire life dedicated to converting the world to
Christianity.
Building men of virtue in a culture of
vice,
Peter P. Lackey, Jr.
Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge
"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the
good" - Thomas
Aquinas
Footnotes:
[1] Kurtz, Manifesto 2000, 10.
[2] R. C. Sproul, The Consequences
of Ideas (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000), 121.
[3] Ibid., 122-3.
[4] Norman L. Geisler, “Kant,
Immanuel,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 404.
[5] Sproul, 127.
[6] Geisler, “Origins, Science of”
in Apologetics, 567.
[7] Geisler, “First Principles” in
Apologetics, 252-3.
[8] Romans 12:20, NIV.
[9] Geisler, “Faith and Reason” in
Apologetics, 243.
[10] When I use the term atheism I
am including philosophical naturalism and materialism which both presuppose
that God does not exist in their strong form. This view has been also been
called “metaphysical naturalism” or “methodological naturalism.” There is a
moderate form of metaphysical naturalism that proposes a deistic god that is
actively separate from the world that he brought into being and cannot
intervene in it without ‘violating’ the natural laws. This would appear to be
the type of god that Antony Flew now embraces.
[11] Phillip Johnson, Reason in the
Balance: A Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, (Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 45.
[12] Dan D. Crawford, “Does
Evolutionary Science Rule Out a Theistic God?: The Johnson—Pennock Debate,”
Philosophia Christi, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2003): 182-3 [emphasis in the original].
[13] Ibid., 183.
[14] Kurtz, Manifesto 2000, 26.
[15] Roger Highfield, ”Science’s
Scourge of Believers Declares His Faith In Darwin,” The Daily Telegraph 5
January 2005, 10.
[16] Richard N. Ostling, “Famous
Atheist Now Believes in God,” The Associated Press, 9 December 2004, Domestic
News.
So what is my point? The philosophy of naturalism/materialism has neutered the principle of causality by minimizing it to merely material and efficient causes which is only two of the four causes! The four types or aspects of causality are final, formal, material, and efficient causes. The material cause is the matter or stuff that a thing is made of. The efficient cause is what brings a thing into its form, or to put it philosophically, what moves a thing from a state of potentiality to actuality. The formal cause is the form, structure, or pattern the matter exhibits. The final cause is the thing's purpose or end goal; i.e., why the thing exists in the first place. When you put all of this together, you have a complete explanation of a thing, whatever that thing may be.
