Faith Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! == Epistemological analysis == {{redirect|justification of faith|the concept of justification ''by'' faith|sola fide}} {{see also|Epistemology}} The epistemological study focuses on epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. A justified belief is a belief that is well-supported by evidence and reasons, and that is arrived at through a reliable and trustworthy process of inquiry. Faith is often regarded as a form of belief that may not necessarily rely on empirical evidence. However, when religious faith does make empirical claims, these claims need to undergo scientific testing to determine their validity. On the other hand, some beliefs may not make empirical claims and instead focus on non-empirical issues such as ethics, morality, and spiritual practices. In these cases, it may be necessary to evaluate the validity of these beliefs based on their internal coherence and logical consistency, rather than empirical testing. There is a wide spectrum of opinion concerning the [[epistemological]] validity of faith<ref name="isbn0-06-065292-6">{{cite book |last=Lewis|first=C.S. |author-link=C.S. Lewis |title=[[Mere Christianity]]: a revised and amplified edition, with a new introduction, of the three books, Broadcast talks, Christian behaviour, and Beyond personality |publisher=HarperSanFrancisco |location=[[San Francisco]] |year=2001 |isbn=0-06-065292-6}}</ref> — that is, whether it is a reliable way to acquire true beliefs. === Fideism === {{Main|Fideism}} Fideism is considered to be a [[philosophical theory|philosophical position]] rather than a comprehensive [[epistemology|epistemological theory]]. It maintains that faith is independent of [[reason]], or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular [[truth]]s (see [[natural theology]]). Fideism is not a synonym for religious belief but describes a particular philosophical proposition concerning the relationship between faith's appropriate jurisdiction at arriving at truths, contrasted against reason. It states that faith is needed to determine some philosophical and religious truths, and it questions the ability of reason to arrive at all truth. The word and concept had its origin in the mid to late-19th century by way of [[Catholic]] thought, in a movement called [[Traditionalism (Catholicism)|Traditionalism]]. The Roman Catholic [[Magisterium]] has, however, repeatedly condemned [[fideism]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|first=Richard|last=Amesbury|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/|title=Fideism|encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=14 October 2015}}</ref> Critics of fideism suggest that it is not a justified or rational position from an epistemological standpoint. Fideism holds that religious beliefs cannot be justified or evaluated based on evidence or reason and that faith alone is a sufficient basis for belief. This position has been criticized because it leads to dogmatism, irrationality, and a rejection of the importance of reason and evidence in understanding the world.<ref>{{cite book|last=Audi|first=R.|year=2005|chapter=Fideism|title=The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> [[William Alston]] argues that while faith is an important aspect of religious belief, it must be grounded in reason and evidence to be justified.<ref>{{cite book|last=Alston|first=W.P.|year=1986|title=Divine nature and human language: Essays in philosophical theology|publisher=Cornell University Press}}</ref> === Religious epistemology === {{see also|Religious epistemology|reformed epistemology|foundationalism|basic belief}} [[Religious epistemology|Religious epistemologists]] formulated and defended reasons for the rationality of accepting belief in God without the support of an argument.<ref name=InternetReligious>{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/ |title=Religious Epistemology |last=Clark|first=Kelly James |date=2 October 2004 |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=23 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111103164220/http://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/ |archive-date=3 November 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> Some religious epistemologists hold that belief in God is more analogous to belief in a person than belief in a scientific hypothesis. Human relations demand trust and commitment. If belief in God is more like belief in other persons, then the trust that is appropriate to persons will be appropriate to God. American [[psychologist]] and [[philosopher]] [[William James]] offers a similar argument in his lecture ''[[The Will to Believe]]''.<ref name=InternetReligious /><ref name=WillToBelieve>{{cite journal |last=James |first=William |title=1896 |journal=New World |volume=5 |pages=327–347 |url=https://educ.jmu.edu//~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html |access-date=23 October 2011 |archive-date=7 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111007233257/http://educ.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Foundationalism]] is a view about the structure of justification or [[knowledge]].<ref name="InternetFoundational">{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://iep.utm.edu/foundationalism-in-epistemology/ |title=Foundationalism |last=Poston|first=Ted |date=10 June 2010 |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=23 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111103033308/http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/ |archive-date=3 November 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> Foundationalism holds that all knowledge and [[Theory of justification|justified belief]] are ultimately based upon what are called [[Basic belief|properly basic beliefs]]. This position is intended to resolve the [[Regress argument|infinite regress]] problem in [[epistemology]]. According to foundationalism, a belief is epistemically justified only if it is justified by properly basic beliefs. One of the significant developments in foundationalism is the rise of [[reformed epistemology]].<ref name=InternetFoundational /> Reformed epistemology is a view about the epistemology of religious belief, which holds that belief in God can be properly basic. [[Analytic philosophy|Analytic]] philosophers [[Alvin Plantinga]] and [[Nicholas Wolterstorff]] develop this view.<ref name=Plantinga1983>{{cite book |title=Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God |last1=Plantinga |first1=Alvin |author-link=Alvin Plantinga |first2=Nicholas|last2= Wolterstorff |year=1983 |publisher=University of Notre Dame Press |location=Notre Dame, IN |isbn=0-268-00964-3 }}</ref> Plantinga holds that a person may rationally believe in God even though the person does not possess sufficient evidence to convince an agnostic. One difference between reformed epistemology and fideism is that the former requires defense against known objections, whereas the latter might dismiss such objections as irrelevant.<ref name=StanfordReligious>{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/ |title=The Epistemology of Religion |last=Forrest|first= Peter |date=11 March 2009 |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=23 October 2011 }}</ref> Plantinga developed reformed epistemology in ''Warranted Christian Belief'' as a form of [[externalism]] that holds that the justification-conferring factors for a belief may include external factors.<ref name=Plantinga2000>{{cite book |title=Warranted Christian Belief |url=https://archive.org/details/warrantedchristi0000plan |url-access=registration |last=Plantinga |first=Alvin |author-link=Alvin Plantinga |year=2000 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |isbn=0-19-513192-4 }}</ref> Some [[Theism|theistic]] philosophers have defended theism by granting [[evidentialism]] but supporting theism through deductive arguments whose premises are considered justifiable. Some of these arguments are probabilistic, either in the sense of having weight but being inconclusive or in the sense of having a [[probability|mathematical probability]] assigned to them.<ref name=InternetReligious /> Notable in this regard are the cumulative arguments presented by [[United Kingdom|British]] philosopher [[Basil Mitchell (academic)|Basil Mitchell]] and [[Analytic philosophy|analytic]] philosopher [[Richard Swinburne]], whose arguments are based on [[Bayesian probability]].<ref>{{multiref2 |1={{cite book |title=The Justification of Religious Belief |last=Basic |first=Mitchell |author-link=Basil Mitchell (academic) |publisher=Macmillan |location=London }} |2={{cite book |title=The Existence of God |last=Swinburne |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Swinburne |publisher=Clarendon Press |location=Oxford}} }}</ref> In a notable exposition of his arguments, Swinburne appeals to an inference for the best explanation.<ref>{{multiref2 |1={{cite book |title=God without the Supernatural |url=https://archive.org/details/godwithoutsupern00forr_0 |url-access=registration |last=Forrest |first=Peter |year=1996 | author-link=Peter Forrest (philosopher) |publisher=Cornell University Press |location=Ithaca |isbn=978-0-8014-3255-2 }} |2={{cite book |title=Is there a God? |last=Swinburne |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Swinburne |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford}} }}</ref> [[Professor of Mathematics]] and [[philosopher of science]] at [[University of Oxford]] [[John Lennox]] justifies his religious belief in Jesus's resurrection and miracles by believing God's capability of breaking the commonly recognized law of nature.<ref>{{cite web|title=God Delusion Debate (Dawkins – Lennox)|website=[[YouTube]]|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5bPI92-5o|quote=...having produced some sort of a case for a kind of deistic God, perhaps some God — The Great Physicist who adjusted the laws and constants of the universe. That's all very grand and wonderful and then suddenly we come down to the resurrection of Jesus. It's so petty, it's so trivial...|access-date=2023-03-06|archive-date=2023-03-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326025938/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5bPI92-5o&t=172s&ab_channel=LarryAlexTaunton|url-status=live}}</ref> [[John Lennox]] has stated, "Faith is not a leap in the dark; it's the exact opposite. It's a commitment based on [[evidence]]… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion." He criticises [[Richard Dawkins]] as a famous proponent of asserting that faith equates to holding a belief without evidence, thus that it is possible to hold belief without evidence, for failing to provide evidence for this assertion.<ref>{{cite book|last=Lennox|first=John|title=God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?|url=https://archive.org/details/godsundertaker00john|url-access=registration|publisher=Lion UK|year=2009}}</ref>{{clarify|date=May 2018}} Critics of reformed epistemology argue that it fails to provide a compelling justification for belief in God and that it is unable to account for the diversity of religious belief and experience. They also argue that it can lead to a kind of epistemic relativism, in which all religious beliefs are considered equally valid and justified, regardless of their content or coherence. Despite these criticisms, reformed epistemology has been influential in the contemporary philosophy of religion and continues to be an active area of debate and discussion.<ref>{{cite book|title=Reformed Epistemology and the Problem of Religious Diversity|first=Joseph|last=Kim|publisher=Pickwick Publications|date=June 8, 2011}}</ref> === Empirical claims === Many religious beliefs are intended to be metaphorical or symbolic, but there are also religious beliefs that are taken quite literally by believers. For example, some Christians believe that the Earth was created in six literal days, and some Muslims believe that the Quran contains scientific facts that were not known to humans at the time of its revelation. Furthermore, even if a religious belief is intended to be metaphorical or symbolic, it can still be subject to empirical testing if it makes claims about the world. For example, the claim that the Earth is the center of the universe can be interpreted as a metaphorical representation of humanity's special place in the cosmos, but it also makes an empirical claim that can be tested by scientific observation.<ref>{{multiref2 |1={{cite book|last=Plantinga|first=A.|year=2011|title=Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism|publisher=Oxford University Press}} |2={{cite book|title=The Epistemology of Religious Experience|first=Keith|last=Yāndell|series=New Series|volume=104|number=413|date=January 1995|pages=219–222|publisher=Oxford University Press}} }}</ref> === Morality & Faith === {{see also|Morality#Evolution}} From a scientific perspective, morality is not dependent on faith.{{citation needed|date=July 2023}} While some individuals may claim that their morality is rooted in their faith or religious beliefs, there is evidence to suggest that morality is also influenced by other factors, such as social and cultural norms, empathy, and reason. Studies have shown that individuals from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds tend to share many moral values, suggesting that morality is not solely dependent on faith. Additionally, research in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology has shed light on the biological and cognitive mechanisms underlying moral decision-making, providing further evidence that morality is not exclusively dependent on faith.<ref>{{multiref2 |1={{cite book|last=Harris|first=S.|year=2010|title=The moral landscape: How science can determine human values|publisher=Simon and Schuster}} |2={{cite book|last=Sinnott-Armstrong|first=W.|year=2004|title=Morality without God?|publisher=Oxford University Press}} |3={{cite book|title=The Science of the Mind|first=Owen J.|last=Flanagan|publisher=MIT Press|year=1984}} }}</ref> === Criticism === {{see also|Anti-abortion violence|September 11 attacks|7 July 2005 London bombings}} [[Bertrand Russell]] wrote:<ref name="auto"/> {{blockquote|Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. At any rate, they hold this about the communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith". We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute different emotions. Christians have faith in the Resurrection; communists have faith in [[Labor theory of value|Marx's Theory of Value]]. Neither faith can be defended rationally, and each therefore is defended by propaganda and, if necessary, by war.| ''Will Religious Faith Cure Our Troubles?''}} [[Evolutionary biology|Evolutionary biologist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] criticizes all faith by generalizing from specific faith in propositions that conflict directly with scientific evidence.<ref name=TheGodDelusion>{{cite book| first = Richard | last = Dawkins | title = The God Delusion | url = https://archive.org/details/goddelusion0000dawk_b2x1 | location = Boston | publisher = Houghton Mifflin | year = 2008 | isbn = 978-0-618-91824-9 }}</ref> He describes faith as belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking. He states that it is a practice that only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claim about nature that is based solely on their personal thoughts, and possibly distorted perceptions, that does not require testing against nature, cannot make reliable and consistent predictions, and is not subject to peer review.<ref name="Is Science a Religion?">{{cite web|author=Dawkins, Richard |date=January–February 1997 |url=http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html |title=Is Science a Religion? |access-date=15 March 2008 |publisher=American Humanist Association |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030144700/http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html |archive-date=30 October 2012 }}</ref> Philosophy professor [[Peter Boghossian]] argues that reason and evidence are the only way to determine which "claims about the world are likely true". Different religious traditions make different religious claims, and Boghossian asserts that faith alone cannot resolve conflicts between these without evidence. He gives an example of the belief held by Muslims that [[Muhammad]] (who died in the year 632) was the last prophet, and the contradictory belief held by Mormons that [[Joseph Smith]] (born in 1805) was a prophet. Boghossian asserts that faith has no "built-in corrective mechanism". For factual claims, he gives the example of the belief that the Earth is 4,000 years old. With only faith and no reason or evidence, he argues, there is no way to correct this claim if it is inaccurate. Boghossian advocates thinking of faith either as "belief without evidence" or "pretending to know things you don't know".<ref>{{cite book |title=A Manual for Creating Atheists |author=Peter Boghossian |author-link= Peter Boghossian|year=2013 |publisher=Pitchstone Publishing |isbn=978-1-939578-09-9 |page=31}}</ref> [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] expressed his criticism of the Christian idea of faith in passage 51 of [[The Antichrist (book)|The Antichrist]]:<ref>{{cite book|first=Friedrich|last=Nietzsche|translator-first=H.L.|translator-last=Mencken|title=The Anti-Christ|location=Chicago|publisher=Sharp Press|year=1999|page=144}}</ref> <blockquote>The fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for blessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an idée fixe by no means makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves no mountains, but instead raises them up where there were none before: all this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a lunatic asylum. Not, of course, to a priest: for his instincts prompt him to the lie that sickness is not sickness and lunatic asylums not lunatic asylums. Christianity finds sickness necessary, just as the Greek spirit had need of a superabundance of health—the actual ulterior purpose of the whole system of salvation of the church is to make people ill. And the church itself—doesn't it set up a Catholic lunatic asylum as the ultimate ideal?—The whole earth as a madhouse?—The sort of religious man that the church wants is a typical décadent; the moment at which a religious crisis dominates a people is always marked by epidemics of nervous disorder; the "inner world" of the religious man is so much like the "inner world" of the overstrung and exhausted that it is difficult to distinguish between them; the "highest" states of mind, held up before mankind by Christianity as of supreme worth, are actually epileptoid in form—the church has granted the name of holy only to lunatics or to gigantic frauds in majorem dei honorem....</blockquote> [[Gustave Le Bon]] emphasizes the irrational nature of faith and suggests that it is often based on emotions rather than reason. He argues that faith can be used to manipulate and control people, particularly in the context of religious or political movements. In this sense, Le Bon views faith as a tool that can be wielded by those in power to shape the beliefs and behaviors of the masses.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind|first=Gustave|last= Le Bon|year= 1896}}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page