Faith - the Starting Point for Reason

Have I already gotten your blood boiling?  Does my title already get a certain subset of you thinking I have done some sort of “bait and switch” – writing in my first two mini-essays about knowledge and reason, then all of a sudden switching to some sort of religious discussion?

I have not.  Do you trust me enough to read a little longer?  I will start to explain. 

Recall that in my last post in this series, I said this:

“To my way of thinking, there are three other justifications for claiming Truth for a fact, outside of Reason.  Those three justifications are Experience, Faith and Authority.”

That statement can be construed correctly to mean that I think all fact-based Truth claims rely on one or more of four things:  Reason, Experience, Faith and Authority.

We examined Authority last time, and I briefly touched on Experience.  But I really need to get to Faith.  But I want you to understand that my definition of Faith is both very specific and very broad at the same time.  It is specific in that it is simple.  It is broad in that it does not merely apply to what people would call religious faith.  When we talk about faith, people often get caught up in thoughts and discussions surrounding religion.  This makes sense, given the use of the term faith in common usage.  But when it comes to Knowledge and Fact-based Truth, what does Faith really mean?

Here’s the definition I propose:  

Faith is that step in reason which allows us to assume the truth of something which cannot be proven.

Notice here that I am defining “faith” in the context of reason – of logic.  Later, perhaps I will tie it to the context of religious faith, but for now, I need to narrow in on the meaning related to reason.  Let’s take a look at what the definition does and does not say.  

A very important aspect of this definition is the final phrase: “cannot be proven.”  Notice, it does not say “is not proven.”  A close analogy for this definition is to the idea of a postulate in mathematical proofs.  

For those of you who never liked proofs in math classes, I apologize, but there was a very important point taught in your first few lessons:  in order to make a mathematical proof, you first had to start with some things which you simply assumed were true.  A very nice list of the postulates of normal geometry can be found here, but let me extract one as an example.

Unique Line Assumption: Through any two points, there is exactly one line.

That "assumption" is a postulate. If you assume this and the related postulates  then a large number of other things can be proven.  But, very importantly for my analogy to faith, the key here is that you never try to prove that this assumption is true.  You assume it.

Faith is somewhat like that.  In the definition, and in the analogy, there are statements of Truth which are simply accepted, upon which you base reasoned arguments and “proofs” but which are never proven.

The key difference between what my definition of Faith says, though, and what mathematical postulates represent is that my definition of Faith says the truth of the Faith statement cannot be proven.  Postulates, on the other hand, are not quite the same – a postulate is a True statement which does not require proof.   

The point I am making here is that, much like in math, Knowledge itself has statements which, at their core, are not Reasoned – they are assumed.  And it is my contention that Faith is exactly that thing which is required to assume that Truth because some statements simply cannot be proven.

This is hard for people to accept, though.  Our modern minds, particularly our scientific minds, want to believe that everything can be proven.  In particular, people want to believe that everything can be explained.  

It is my belief, though, that this is not completely accurate.  And, it is my assertion, based on my belief, that we all would be better off recognizing and appreciating the idea that Faith is required for Reason, and hence for Knowledge.

“Wait, wait, wait,” you might say. “How can this be?  Doesn’t modern scientific rationality operate based on the idea that all things can be proven?  Where is ‘faith’ in that?”

Let’s discuss.

At the core of it, science is based on reason.  A hypothesis is developed – or at least a claim is made – and then tested based on the application of reason.  But what components are used in this process of reason?  Existing mental models of the way the world works (scientific theories), and data derived from observation - Facts.

But: How do scientists know that the data they are collecting are actually True?  Everywhere?  No matter what?

The answer is, ultimately, they do not.  Truth of Data implies a Very Large Thing: that this same data would result by doing the same observation in all equivalent situations.  Since it is absolutely impossible to conduct the observation in every equivalent situation, they make the assumption that, the theories or laws which govern the outcome of this experiment, and the ones which confirm it, will apply throughout the universe, or everywhere on Earth, or whatever the generalized environment.  If the theory surrounding the explanation of the data is sound, then equivalent situations would always produce equivalent data.

But the assumption that things work the same way everywhere is, in fact, a statement of Faith, by my definition.  You cannot be everywhere and you cannot gather data in all equivalent situations, so to assume Truth based on limited information is, in fact, an act of Faith.  

Please understand.  I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  [I’d argue that you could not function in the world if you could not assume this, so it is the most natural assumption humans can make.]  Assuming a consistent set of physical laws throughout reality makes sense.  But ultimately, we cannot prove it.  We must assume it.

And, in fact, much new science comes about when something we assumed to be True in all situations turns out to be False in some specific situation – when data we collect leads us to believe we were wrong.  We assume that there is some natural law we have not described yet which is based on a new situation, or a new factor, which we had not adequately considered.

But we never assume that this new data is somehow different just for this one situation.  We assume it represents a difference for all of reality.

That is one of the few “faith statements” which form the basis of most scientific thought.  [And, amazingly, it actually has broken down, to some extent. But that’s a topic for another time – quantum theory is very, very strange.]

There are actually a few core Faith statements which we use in reason, and in scientific reason in particular.  The one above -- maybe we'd call it the Ordered Universe Postulate, or the Universal Laws Postulate -- is one which makes sense to us, so we barely consider it.  And I am not pointing it out in order to challenge it.  I believe it.  Just as I believe that an Objective Reality exists (another Faith postulate.)  My point in this post is to set this particular definition of what Faith means in the context of Reason.

Do you believe me yet?  Do you believe that there are things which are impossible to prove, but which serve as the basis for our Reason?  Just as in logic or math we have to start from somewhere and build logically on top of those starting points.  In all discussions and in all reason, we have to start somewhere.  When we start from the lowest level, we are using Faith.  Your Faith statements might seem completely reasonable to you.  They might, in fact, feel so certain that they seem to be unquestionably True.  The point is, they are not unquestionable – they are un-proveable.

In future posts, I'll come back to this definition, because of course, there are other definitions of Faith.  But there are also implications to how this definition of Faith affects the interrelationship between Science and Religion.