reason vs. faith

well i have found something else to share with you. i just received back my 3-4 page double-spaced 12 point times new roman font paper on the topic of reason vs. faith. even religion papers have wordly guidelines. it did go onto the fifth page because of my post-script but but my teacher really enjoyed it and i got an A. but all that aside, here it is:



Reason vs. Faith?

Is it reasonable to believe in God? Is it reasonable to have faith? I think it is, but do not tune me out immediately. You might find an error in my argument and convince me that my views are wrong or you might learn something from the argument to; defend whatever your views may be.

The definition of reason is the ability to think logically regarded as a basis for knowledge, as distinct from experience or emotions. The definition of faith is belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. So how can faith be reasonable if faith comes in hand “especially without logical proof?” In terms of religion, reason can not be the only pillar to hold it up. Faith comes in hand after reason has done its duty and has showed that there is reason for faith. As John Paul II said (a very well-respected man in all denominations of Christianity and in fact all religions), “Faith intervenes not to abolish reason's autonomy nor to reduce its scope for action, but solely to bring the human being to understand that in these events it is the God of Israel who acts.” So it must have faith and reason.

As state earlier, reason is objective, based on the facts, hence, “distinct from experience or emotions.” Therefore reason should use the facts and laws of history and science to logically deduce an answer. If the religion is true, it should have nothing to fear from science and history because these would only prove to further credit the believability of the religion. So the religious should actually look to science and history and not shy away from it and change the topic of conversation.

But now to further prove my point on how reason verifies faith by using the knowns of history and science to logically produce an answer, I will quote two great scientists in history. Although when most people think of scientist they think of anti-religious people. Some of the greatest scientists have discovered that a higher power is the most reasonable answer behind every question in the universe. One such is Albert Einstein. He said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” He saw that scientists who rejected religion were ignorant and religions that rejected science must be trying to hide their lies because science will uncover that they are not a true religion. Isaac Newton, another great scientist, said, “The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics.” As we see from two great scientists, science actually reasonably points toward religion not away from it. Thus faith points towards reason and reason points towards faith and they both affirm the other.

So let us take stock of what we have covered already. Science and history both point to a higher power, and faith and reason work together to secure religion. So where do we go from here? Well I have to admit that there is no way to prove that God exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. But if you could, there would be no need for faith and He would not be God. There would be no mystery which creates a need for faith. And if there was no mystery, we would know everything about God, and he would not be God.

Although there is no way to empirically or scientifically prove that God exists beyond a shadow of a doubt, there a hints all around us of a higher being. The greatest of these hints is creation. Let us say you were walking down the beach and you saw the words “Sand Castle” spelled out with rocks in front of one. Now you would probably not think, “Oh how interesting, the earth happened to shake just enough to arrange the rocks in this way.” You would probably be wondering who designed this. It is that way with the universe. Someone had to do something. Thus, the fact that we are here indicates a higher being.

So how did the creation happen? This is where reason points toward and dead ends into faith. So how did it happen? Was it the Big Bang? It could have been and contrary to what some believe this actually points towards a creator. What happened a second before the Big Bang? What caused it to happen? Well the point is; there is no way that this elaborate design of the universe just randomly generated by chance. There had to be a creator.

Along with the evidence of a higher power all around us, there is verification within ourselves. Deep inside we long for a higher power, something in control of the world to keep the world from spinning of its axis (both literally and figuratively). Deep inside we also long to reason to make sense of ourselves and the universe. There also is the longing for internal happiness which can not be satisfied for the short-lived excuses for happiness that seem to attract so much of us. The corrupted American Dream. Now it is all about wealth, sex, and the next big thing. We are sold that we never have enough. Although this is an advertising campaign it is somewhat true. We do not have enough happiness, but it is true eternal happiness that we are lacking, not the latest and greatest luxury car and another zero on the end of that pay-check.

One fundamental of faith to help us reasonably believe in a creator, is that faith is only as strong and believable as the object that it is placed in. For example you would not have faith that an infant could get in a car and drive down the street to Applebee’s. It would not be reasonable. So which is more believable: that we spontaneously generated or that there is a higher power out there that created the intricate and detailed design of the universe? I would think it would be the latter.

But at the end of the day, it all comes down to faith since you cannot prove that God exists scientifically, historically, or empirically. So if faith alone is not appealing enough we can look at French mathematician and scientist Blaise Paschal’s probability theory. If you were a gambler where would you place your money (and this is not even your money that is at stake, it is all eternity)? Since you do not know for sure (or else there would be no need for faith) whether there is a God and whether there is life after death, where would you place you bet? Would you live a good life after the model of Jesus or live a life of sin and pursuing the cheap thrills of this hollow, modern society? If you chose the former and there is no eternal life, there is no retribution. But if you chose the latter and there is eternal life, there is an eternal retribution you must pay in the fiery depths of Hell. So therefore if you reject religion and say that the existence of God is unreasonable, at least say that it is reasonable to believe in Him to avoid damnation based on Pashal’s theory. But now the choice is yours. Is it reasonable to believe in God? Do you want to enjoy true happiness in life in hope that there is a Heaven or chase after the shadowy mirror image of true happiness in the form of cheap thrills in hope that there is no Hell?

P.S.
So science, history and therefore reason logically indicate a higher power. But who is this higher power? There are so many different religions out there, which one is the true religion. I believe that reasoning with the objective facts will point you toward the true religion. But it would be way too much to rule out each and every religion under the sun, so I suggest doing some reading up on which religions others who have come before us have logically ruled out or called the true religion and go from there.


well that concludes that paper. i hope you enjoyed it and feel free to share any thoughts you have on the topic. thanks,
michael