Wednesday 5 May 2010

Reason, Faith, and Revolution

I’ve just finished reading Terry Eagleton’s book ‘Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate’ (2009). Terry Eagleton,  is Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and Professor of Cultural Theory at the National University of Ireland in Galway.  He has written more than 40 books including ‘Literary Theory: An Introduction’ (1983), ‘The Ideology of the Aesthetic’ (1990) and the ‘The Illusions of Postmodernism’. He is a literary critic first and foremost and political activist second. He is also a well-known Marxist and agnostic. He does not claim to be a philosopher or theologian, although he draws on both in this entertaining (but hardly ground breaking) book.

In this new book Eagleton offers a withering critique of New Atheism and its major proponents Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (who he refers to collectively as ‘Ditchkins’). The major thesis of his book is that faith and reason are not exclusive categories as 'Ditchkins' argues. He suggests that religion (particularly in those forms that he sees as ‘true’ and unadulterated) is not simply a matter of blind mindless faith, but rather requires a combination of faith and reason. He is particularly critical of the tendency of New Atheists to blame all the evils of the world on religion while blindly celebrating science without questioning its benefits. This same science he reminds us that gave us penicillin, artificial limbs and enhanced agricultural productivity has also been used to create weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare and environmental disasters.

Christians shouldn't read Eagleton expecting to find a generous assessment. He has plenty of negative things to say about Christianity today.  Some of the things he says have an element of truth, others are perhaps exaggerated (but that is his style), some are inaccurate or unfair. New Atheists will probably say the same. His general view is that the church has lost touch with Christ's example and teaching.  Of course, in saying this he has a particular view of Christ in mind which I suspect is an incomplete one. He suggests that “..it is hard to think of a historical movement that has more squalidly betrayed its own revolutionary origins” (p. 55). As in some of his previous publications such strong views reflect a simplistic caricature in relation to Christianity. While he makes claims about some Christians throughout history being responsible for bigotry, injustice, cruelty, deception, hypocrisy and so on, it is just as easy to offer a list of the many examples of Christian contributions to society, including fighting injustice, the foundations of western government and the law, the establishment of most of the major aid agencies around the world, a record of care of the sick and homeless, being the catalyst for universal education, fighting for human rights etc.

Eagleton is just as critical of the rise of religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, which he calls ‘New Age religion’). He suggests that “It offers a refuge from the world, not a mission to transform it” (p.41). So, the Christian right gets a giant serve as do Islamic extremists who he sees as politically motivated rather than inspired by Islam. Liberalism also receives some strong treatment, the general thrust of which I find myself in agreement:
Liberalism he suggests has “..fostered an atomistic notion of the self, a bloodlessly contractual view of human relations, a meagerly utilitarian version of ethics, a crudely instrumental idea of reason, a doctrinal suspicion of doctrine, an impoverished sense of human communality, a self-satisfied faith in progress and civility, a purblindness to the more malign aspects of the human nature, and a witheringly negative view of power, the state, freedom, and tradition.” (p.94).
But Eagleton's major focus and motivation for writing this book has been to challenge the simplistic separation of faith and reason. Both New Atheists and liberal nationalists he claims have failed to understand this relationship. Dawkins he points out assumes that his own belief is reflective of reason, while he sees Christians being guilty of blind faith. Rather, he suggests New Atheists hold a faith position of their own. In fact, he argues that scientists are also motivated by faith, indeed “a great deal of what we believe we do not know firsthand; instead, we have faith in the knowledge of specialists.” Hence, in this area alone, we are dependent on faith in truths that we cannot personally assess and verify.
Eagleton concludes that faith and knowledge are not antithetical but in fact are interwoven. Reasoning of any kind he suggests "...is conducted within the ambit of some sort of faith, attraction, inclination, orientation, predisposition, or prior commitment.” Meaning, value and truth are not “reducible to the facts themselves, in the sense of being ineluctably motivated by a bare account of them.”
Atheists won't like Eagleton’s assessment of them any more than Christians will like some of the things he says about their faith, but his arguments from his perspective as a Marxist are of interest. His command of language and his wide ranging discussion of so many worldviews, makes this book an interesting read.  As well, his rebuke of those who support a simplistic separation of reason from faith is timely.

6 comments:

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

Before I comment properly, I wonder if you would mind defining "faith" and "reason" for me...?

Thanks,

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

One way to answer your question on faith is simply to quite the writer to the Hebrews who spoke of “faith” this way: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

In relation to “reason” I should first ask what type of reason do you mean? But....

For most people reason means the application of logical principles to available evidence. It’s a tool for understanding or making sense of our world. The conclusions we reach will only be as good as the assumptions that drive our thinking. That’s why science often contradicts itself (e.g. medical research). Science is rarely absolutely certain, except to a certain level of probability (there is always some doubt, except if you’re Richard Dawkins!).

As Frances Collins says: “Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation.”

Nice to hear from you.

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

You said that faith "is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". This sounds very much like "believing something to be true without conclusive evidence", and in fact, that is exactly what your dictionary will tell you faith is.

Faith is by definition believing something to be true without sufficient evidence. If you have sufficient evidence, you don't need faith to believe it. If you are assured of something, you have no need to hope for it.

"For most people reason means the application of logical principles to available evidence."

Yes.

"It’s a tool for understanding or making sense of our world."

Yes.

"The conclusions we reach will only be as good as the assumptions that drive our thinking."

Yes.

"That’s why science often contradicts itself (e.g. medical research)."

No, no, no, no.

You are confusing assumptions with outcomes. That two scientific studies produce two different conclusions does not call into question the scientific method, or its assumptions, at all.

Suppose one study showed that coffee increased your risk of cancer, and the other showed that it reduced it. Assuming the two studies were conducted according to the scientific method, it is perfectly reasonable that they might reach different conclusions. As you said, most results (for medical research in particular) are given with a specified level of probability. With a p-value of 5%, you expect one in 20 studies to reach a different conclusion to the others, purely due to randomness.

The issue is: how will we ultimately determine whether or not coffee increases the risk of cancer? Through faith? Do we just trust the authors of the 19 papers that said it reduces the risk of cancer? If so, why don't we trust the author of the one paper that said it increases the risk of cancer? Or, do we acknowledge that (a) the authors are simply drawing a valid conclusion from their respective data, (b) the results are not conclusive yet because we obviously don't fully understand the factors at play, and (c) with further research and better experimental design we can one day determine beyond doubt whether coffee increases the risk of cancer...?

"Science is rarely absolutely certain, except to a certain level of probability (there is always some doubt, except if you’re Richard Dawkins!)."

Again, you are confusing the method (and its assumptions) with the outcomes of individual studies. Dawkins will freely admit that the scientific method can yield different results (which simply means that particular hypothesis has not yet been proved!), while still believing with absolute certainty that the scientific method is the best way to understand how the universe works.

That quote from Francis Collins is interesting. If faith rests upon reason but with the added component of revelation, Eagleton can’t label the “faith” that scientists have in the knowledge that they “do not know firsthand” as “faith” at all. Where is the divine revelation in assuming the validity of previously discovered scientific truths?

The other mistake you have made is in assuming that “we are dependent on faith in truths that we cannot personally assess and verify”. This is absolutely not true. No, we do not personally assess and verify the vast majority of already acquired scientific facts and theories. But just because we don’t, it doesn’t mean that we can’t. That is the key difference between scientific truth and religious truth. Anyone, if they want to, can verify a scientific truth for themselves. No one can independently verify that an angel dictated the Koran to Muhammad in a cave.

Tim

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

The difference between faith and reason is the difference between choosing to believe something is true, and believing something because it's true.

You have chosen to believe that Jesus was who he said he was. You cannot say "Jesus is the son of god", you can only say "I believe that Jesus is the son of god". A subtle but very important difference.

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

Good to see some agreement below, but I suspect that we’re still poles apart. Here is my response to many of your responses:

1. I gave you a definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1, I don’t think your definition matches mine. Faith is required when evidence is not sufficient to lead to certainty (mind you it doesn't have to 'follow' evidence). Dawkins himself exercises faith in Science on a daily basis. We all have faith in many things Tim.

2. Science does contradict itself! Believe me, I understand scientific method, I have used it for 40 years as a researcher and have taught it as part of research design courses. My point is a simple one, atheists like Dawkins (who accuses Christians of blind faith) have blind faith in science without the evidence, or with lack of certainty in the evidence.

3. You suggest that I am “confusing assumptions with outcomes” when suggesting that science contradicts itself (which it can – indeed the aim of science is to seek to contradict or make more complex the previous work of others). You then go on to say, “That two scientific studies produce two different conclusions does not call into question the scientific method, or its assumptions, at all.” I’m not questioning scientific method Tim, just your application and faith in it and your unwillingness to recognise that faith is something, which atheists and scientists rely on every day just like Christians. The difference is that I have faith that God was indeed the creator (by whatever method) of all things and that he sent his Son to redeem us. I base this on evidence and faith.

4. You accuse me of many ‘mistakes’ (including some things that I didn’t even say – it was Eagleton who argued that “we are dependent on faith in truths that we cannot personally assess and verify” - I was reporting his views as a Marxist and agnostic), but my favourite is that you correct me on matters of faith and truth. You say, “No, we do not personally assess and verify the vast majority of already acquired scientific facts and theories. But just because we don’t, it doesn’t mean that we can’t. That is the key difference between scientific truth and religious truth. Anyone, if they want to, can verify a scientific truth for themselves. No one can independently verify that an angel dictated the Koran to Muhammad in a cave.”

In response, let me ask when will you get around to independently verifying how gravity works? The structure of an atomic particles, or how an atomic particle accelerator works? I suspect that you will continue to maintain your faith in the science that has attempted to explain it. Second, I don’t need to “independently verify” who Jesus was and what he did. I believe that the evidence of the Bible and God’s continuing revelation through his Spirit are sufficient for me.

5. Your last coffee example simply demonstrates how you continue to miss the point that science and faith can live together. If I want to know “whether or not coffee increases the risk of cancer” I look to science just like you (without the blind faith because I know that there are many scientific answers to the question). I come as most Christians do with a critical mind wanting to work things out, seeking meaning and truth. But where would you go to if you wanted to know what is the purpose of your existence? Science won’t help you much here. That’s where faith and religious understanding is more useful. Yes, you are entitled to say science suggests to me that there is no point to life beyond what we can observe, but I don’t agree. And remember, I reached that conclusion after a life of atheism, after knowing about science, scientific method etc. I concluded based on evidence that Christ was who he said he is and I placed my faith in him. Faith and science can co-exist, that’s why so many wonderful scientists have faith in God and why the founders of science were virtually all Deists.

Thanks for your comment.

Trevor

Trevor Cairney said...

Tim,

In response to the question just before my comment in which you state "The difference between faith and reason is the difference between choosing to believe something is true, and believing something because it's true". I don't agree. Once again, you trivialize matters of faith and sell 'reason' short. Faith can't simply be "choosing to believe something is true" without any evidence, but it can be deciding that something is true without certainty. We can have "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1) but it is also associated with evidence.

The second half of your statement is what you accuse Christians of doing - you're simply making a truth claim. Reason you say is "believing something because it's true". Mmm, a bit like me saying I believe in God because it's true. Would you let me away with this? No! Surely, you've now forgotten about evidence!

Trevor