Where Science, Reason, and Faith Get Stuck
Fundamentalists & Fanatics
The first step to living a meaning-oriented life is to take a sober self-inventory and get honest with ourselves about why we believe in the things we do. We have to be vulnerable and ask ourselves some tough questions:
“Is my subjective-truth oriented to the objective Truth?”
“How confident should I be about that?”
Might I simply take for granted what others have taught me? What if my teachers were disoriented? Isn’t that at least a possibility? If they were, doesn’t it follow that I am too? If this were true in your case, would you be able to tell?
Here lies the danger of being a fundamentalist. Are you encouraged (or allowed) to honestly question your assumptions without facing the inquisition of your culture? If you’re not, then let that be your first clue. Perhaps it’s time to put a little courage on and do it anyways.
What’s being hidden if you aren’t allowed to ask good questions. If those in authority say: “it’s too complicated for you to understand”—maybe they don’t understand. Sit with that probability for a sober moment.
Jesus taught that: “everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” John 3:20-21.
The Truth is a great filter for nonsense. It’s certainly not afraid of a good question.
Fundamentalism isn’t the only threat to good philosophy. Perhaps you want your world to be a certain way so badly that you “just know” it is. Do you ignore, attack, or cancel those who object to your worldview? Do you suppress evidence that doesn’t support it? Are you willing to have an honest conversation? Or are you determined to win your next confrontation? Here lies the danger of being a fanatic.
Keeping Clear of Charybdis
Our subjective orientation to reality depends in part on our family, culture, background, education, and chosen interests. If you work in a scientific field, you surely realize the value of asking a question, forming a hypothesis, collecting data, analyzing statistics, and forming conclusions based on the results.
Doing good-science is how we invented everything from clay-jars to jetliners. Science is a powerful tool, but it requires observation, analysis, and even the virtue of human honesty up and running for it to work.
Don’t honest observations have to come from an honest-observer? Can science tell us where these come from? No, it can’t—because it needs them to function in the first place. As important as science is, it has limits. Science cannot offer us an explanation of itself. The scientist who ignores these limits, or who dishonestly fixes their data to fit their hypothesis is doing bad-science.
What about reason? Critical thinking is a powerful tool, but it requires logic, consciousness, and discernment already up and running for it to work. Can reason tell us where these come from? No, it can’t—because it needs them to function in the first place. As important as reason is, it has limits. Human reason can’t give us an explanation of itself. Those who over-index their own thinking become bad-reasoners. Because their bad-thinking is seldom exposed to the corrections found in the good-thinking of others. Truly good-thinking must be done in a community.
What about faith? By faith, I mean a persuaded trust in some authority. We all practice a version of this. There are lots of candidates competing for authority over our lives. Which, if any of them are worth trusting? Is it wise to orient oneself to reality on faith-alone?
To illustrate the problem, let’s pick on a source of authority that I believe in and take seriously. Consider the following conversation:
“Why do you trust the Bible?”
“Because it’s the Bible.”
“What makes the Bible trustworthy?”
“It’s trustworthy because it’s God’s word.”
“How do you know it’s God’s word?”
“Because it’s the Bible, and it says it is.”
Around and around we’ll go. Where do we stop? Nobody knows. Might this describe the trust you place in your source of authority? If it does, then you are engaging in bad-faith. Because anyone who trusts in authority alone commits themself to a vicious whirlpool of circular-science, closed-reasoning, and irresponsible-trust.
It’s a trap!
Homer’s Odyssey tells of the king of Ithaca’s long journey home after the Trojan War. Along the way, Odysseus takes great care to steer clear of a deadly sea-monster called Charybdis. If he hadn’t, he would have risked his entire ship and crew to her deadly whirlpool.
The alternative was to put his six best sailors on the oars and race past Scylla, the six-headed monster on the other side of the straight. Sailing between the monsters wasn’t an option because it guaranteed the hazards of both. Odysseus was forced to pick between two terrible options: Survive, but be certain of sacrificing something; Or tempt chance, and be willing to doom everything.
Odysseus chose sacrifice.
Our journey toward Meaning is a lot like Odysseus’ journey home. We are embarked whether we like it or not. To survive, we must risk some of our favorite ideas. After all, they might be wrong. We can’t just hide below deck and pretend the monsters aren’t there. The monsters are there! To sail true, we had better put our best on the oars. And to make it home, we had better keep clear of Charybdis.
Three currents flow into the whirling abyss. The current of bad-science which begins an inquiry with the outcome already decided; the current of bad-reason which ignores external sources of correction; and the current of bad-faith which is closed off to scrutiny from beyond a narrowing horizon of ideas.
When these currents coalesce, they result in bad-philosophy—and a one-way trip into the abyss. To avoid this trap, we must do good-philosophy instead. We must accept the lesser-risk by opening ourselves up to honest examination and debate. We must recognize that nothing in reality functions properly on its own—not science; not reason; and certainly not faith. We must accept that the Truth is established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 2 Corinthians 13:1
Finally, a good philosopher must be fair-minded. If I use logic to discredit the claims of another, then my claims had better be consistent. If I shake my fist at someone because they can’t define their terms, then I had damn-well better define mine.
What about it?
At the end of your long journey, might the Measure you use to judge others be the same One standing against you?
