Faith & Logic Aren't at Odds

Lisa Randall perpetuates the ubiquitous misunderstanding that faith and logic are incompatible in her essay criticizing some current presidential candidates in Time Magazine, "How Science Can Lead the Way: What we lose when we put faith over logic."  Her concern with the candidates is an expression of her overall view of religion and science.  Her view is summed up in this sentence, "What we are seeing in the current presidential race is not so much a clash between religion and science as a fundamental disregard for rational and scientific thinking." The disregard is found in the candidate's religious expressions.

She writes, "Empirically based logic and the revelatory nature of faith are very different methods for seeking answers, and only logic can be systematically improved and applied."  In this statement, she equates science with logic.  But science isn't the only field of study that employs logic, and other methodology gives us knowledge through applying rationality.  History isn't subject to scientific methodology, yet it's a field of knowledge where rationalty applies.  Christianity largely falls into this methdology where logical investigation and thinking lead us to rational conclusions about what has taken place in the past.  We believe we know all kinds of things about the past that aren't subject to scientific investigation. 

Christianity has always considered itself to be a knowledge tradition.  The Biblical writers offered evidence so that we can know and have confidence about what took place.  Faith is laying hold personally of the significance of those things that took place, not the way we come to know them.  We don't take a "leap of faith."  Faith is a reasonable act of entrusting ourselves to a God who we can rationally conclude has acted on our behalf in history.  Faith and logic aren't incompatible, they are partners.  Some people and some religions may be irrational, but Christian faith isn't illogical.

Randall is concerned about Gov. Perry praying about the Texas drought rather than acting on the scientific evidence for climate change.  Without evaluating the merits of climate science or Perry's specific views, Randall is just wrong to pit prayer and action as patently incompatible. Prayer and action have always gone hand in hand. There's a long tradition of our presidents calling us to prayer while they engage solutions for the problems of our nation. According to Randall's view, Washington and Lincoln would have been irrational since they both, and many other presidents, called the nation to prayer. 

She claims that there's a "chasm between tangible effects [science] and unseen, imperceptible influences [religion] that is unbridgeable by logical thought."  This is just false.  Unseen influences aren't the same as being imperceptible.  After all, gravity is unseen but very perceptible.  In fact, the cosmological argument deals in a scientific, logical way with tangible effects that rationally lead to a conclusion of an unseen yet perceptible Creator. The only reason scientists disregard this explanation is because of their empiricist presuppositions - which is a very irrational way to engage in science.  Logically, scientific investigation  should be open to any rational conclusion rather than limiting the possibilities at the outset.

Science isn't the only realm of logic and knowledge.  Some religions may not be knowledge endeavors, but Christianity always has been. The Bible makes historical claims that can be considered rationally.  And faith is a logical step if those claims turn out to be true.  Faith isn't incompatible with science or logic, only with the modern presupositions of empiricism.

Comments

[WisdomLover]

"Empirically based logic"

I couldn't believe my hearing based eyesight when I read that. It made me doubt all my inference based senses.

[kpolo]

Logic is not empirically based. It is the other way around. First logic is deemed to be 'relevant,' and 'constant' and 'reflective of reality' and 'accessible' to our minds. It is accepted as "a-priori" and "properly basic."

Empiricism can be evaluated because logic precedes empiricism. For one has to have logic to derive from empirical observations to even deduce that logic is "logical."

In the Christian worldview, logic find good grounding in the first cause. Because the first cause if logical and is an intelligent agent, we find reason to believe the universe is viable to logical treatment and the laws governing the universe are logical and uniform.

Time magazine has hit bottom and now they've started digging.

[Trent]

Two things.

1- She should have a conversation with John Polkinghorne,who literally wrote a book on Quantum Physics, and is now an Anglican Priest. Let's see if he agrees.

2- As for praying rather than acting, it reminds me of an old Jewish story I heard once. God was asked what he what he was going to do to to take care of all the evil in the world. The response was "I sent you."

[Kyle2]

Thanks for this well written article Melinda. I thought it interesting that Dr. Randall’s definition of religious influences on the world - “unseen, imperceptible influences that is unbridgeable by logical thought” sounded like a good definition of evolution. Ironically, it was Rick Perry’s insight that evolutionary theory “has some gaps” that initiated this article in Time.

[Brad B]

Hi Trent, I was also reminded of a pithy saying regarding the relationship between praying and action. It goes like this:

"When a farmer prays for a good crop, God expects him to say amen with a hoe!"

"Christianity has always considered itself to be a knowledge tradition."

Not only that, but it also criticizes opposing worldviews of men as foolish. They are suppressing the truth, not honestly searching for it. The "emperical" world should declare the glory of the Creator if science is done right, not disqualify even the possibility of a non material entity.

[Trent]

"They are suppressing the truth, not honestly searching for it."

One example that I can think of from the Physics world (which I will use as I don't know Biology other than a few courses I took)is that sometimes, if you listen, you will hear that the reason that the God hypothesis isn't followed is not because it is ruled out, but for another reason.

Hawking, I hear, is of the philosophy that if you have two models to explain something, and neither have been shown false, and they both give the same results there is no difference between them. Neither one is more real than the other. This comes to play in QM as there are several formulations that all give you the same answer but some are harder to calculate with. In this case, you just use the interpretation that makes the calculation easier, as it is just as valid as any other interpretation. I have heard physicists say, Hawking included, that they choose the naturalistic explanation because it is more interesting.

Physicist, the ones I have met and read, have tendancy to like to speculate. They like to play "What if" games. What if the world had antigravity, for example. What would that mean? What would we expect to see? How would that change other things? Naturally a lot of SF fans.

If you say God did it, then all you are left with is how? If you take the naturalistic point of view, there are numerous pathways to explore. They like to work out puzzles, and this line of thinking brings up a lot more puzzles for them to follow and scrutize and discuss. If we are right about God, eventually all roads will lead back simply to a description about How.

The issue, particularly in the mainstream media, is that most people have such a poor understanding of science that it is hard to seperate scientific thought experiments and scientifically based philosphical positions from actual science. Folks like Dawkins don't help when they don't make a distinction and simply present the philosphical position they based on their understanding of the science as science itself.

At least that is the impression I get, for what it's worth.

[Jesse]

I thought Hawking was of the philosophy that "philosophy is dead." :-)

[Trent]

He wouldn't likely see this as a philosophical position, although it is. The minute you interpret the data, to derive meaning, you are doing philosophy.

[Trent]

Does anyone remember when SF used to try to warn us against scientism? Welcome to the future.

[Jesse]

What does SF stand for?

[Trent]

Science Fiction. All the way back to Brave New World,and before, which I am slowly finding the time to get through.

Lots of warnings about the "mad" scientist who's only moral compass was what science tells him should be done, and the danger of government's beaurocratically agreeing and implimenting it.

Apparently no one listens.

[Francis Beckwith]

"unseen, imperceptible influences that is unbridgeable by logical thought”

As someone has already noted, logic is unseen and imperceptible. In fact, because it is neither it is not subject to the flux and tumult of the material universe.

In fact, and ironically, logic does not seem to be subject to time, whether it is the magazine or that which we finite beings traverse.

[Sam Crabtree]

As soon as I saw Lisa Randall's piece in TIME magazine, I sensed the need for a reasoned response to her tragically fallacious reasoning, the kind which continues to mislead so many.

Thanks for providing a good one. I still plan to write one of my own, but you have encouraged me significantly. Carry on.