The AskPhilosophers logo.

Religion

Why is it that faith, which here I define as religious-based beliefs without or in opposition to empirical or other evidence, is so highly valued, or even central to Christianity (and assumedly many other religions as well)? Perhaps the assumption is that faith is a more 'humble' position rather than over-valueing humankind's ability to rationalise and use logic to understand the world around them, since humility/ lack of pride is highly valued by many major religions ?? Does this mean that philosophy is quite arrogant ? But perhaps that is more a question for psychology and sociology. So in more philosophical terms, I guess I am asking whether faith can be justified from a philosophical point of view, or are the two quite incompatible?
Accepted:
August 19, 2010

Comments

Charles Taliaferro
August 21, 2010 (changed August 21, 2010) Permalink

Good question. I suspect that the term "faith" is used in many different senses today! There is a great book called The Concept of Faith in which Lad Sessions distinguishes at least five models of faith in different religious contexts. For theists, "faith" might stand for the body of beliefs (and maybe practices like prayer) that comprise the religion, or it may refer to fidelity (trust) or it may refer to reasonable belief or, finally, it may refer to belief that is at odds with evidence (the meaning you suggest). Philosophers have taken many sides on faith and its different meanings. Chritian philosophers today who are considered "evidentialists" (Richard Swinburne) holds that religious belief must have evidence to be warranted. Some others who are in the tradition of reformed epistemology hold that many of our beliefs (including our beliefs in secular contexts about the world and each other) do not require evidence to be justified. On their view, beliefs that are reliable and properly caused may be warranted even if the person herself does not know the evidence that would back the beliefs up. Kelly Clark has some good arguments on this, as does Alvin Plantinga (recently retired from the University of Notre Dame). I highly recommend Richard Swinburne's Faith and Reaon for an excellent introduction, brimming over with clever arguments!

As for pride and humility, I suggest there is no exclusive monopoly on either. Virtually any positon (skepticism, agnosticism, atheism, theism) may be held out of pride or humility, depending upon whether the person has tried to carefully consider what view seems most sound and they do not assume (without reason) that they are (automatically) right. In the end, perhaps there needs to be blend of pride or at least self-confidence but not vanity and some humility but without humiliation in the course of practicing philosophy in a healthy, non-dogmatic fashioin?

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/3455
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org