Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Neothought
Michael B. Uzoras

Faith and Philosophy, Yin and Yang
[8.30.2002]


So what has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Tertullian asked this question rhetorically, to be sure. The implicit premise behind the question is that faith and philosophy are incompatible; faith ought to have nothing to do with philosophy, reason or logic. Immanuel Kant had a similar question in mind perhaps when he attempted to "save faith" by drawing his famous distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal. Kant's efforts have had a much different effect than what he expected: the separation of faith from reason contributed heavily to the death of theism in the minds of many a thinker as modernism blossomed during The Enlightenment.

Instead of the usual "apologetic for apologetics" in which both philosophy and the integration of faith and reason are defended (usually beginning with a short study on 1 Peter 3:15 and the Greek word apologia, followed by the argument that we are to "love God with our minds"), I want to proffer an alternative explanation on the nature of the relationship between faith and philosophy, without denying that such a relationship exists (i.e., extreme fideism) or affirming that the relationship is seamless (i.e., theistic rationalism). While I do agree that there is a biblical foundation for apologetics, my focus here is not to defend apologetics directly, but to submit for consideration a possible harmony among faith and philosophy.

The explanation begins by admitting that faith and philosophy are two separate spheres which overlap in particular areas. One could use a Venn diagram to illustrate the areas of overlap and the areas confined solely to each sphere. I will begin with areas of overlap:

1. Both faith and philosophy begin with mystery. Philosophy, says Aristotle, begins in wonder. Faith, according to Scripture, must be like that of a child, which (to me) implies a sense of awe, inspiration, trust, admiration, astonishment, and surprise. A man with a genuine, living faith is one who trusts, is astonished by, and fears his God with a reverent awe and amazement. Both philosophy and faith must remain dynamic. Both stay vibrant when accompanied by an appreciation for mystery and a joy of discovery; when these are not present (as is often the case), faith and philosophy become static, and both the man of faith and the philosopher become insensitive, intolerant and closed-minded.
2. Both are based on hope. Faith is based on a hope in what is believed to be real now as well as what awaits in the future. Philosophy is based on a hope that truth (of some sort) may indeed be known.
3. Both focus upon truth. Philosophy (western philosophy in particular) is the search for truth using the tools of reason and logic. Faith is the intuitive reach for a truth greater than oneself.

Let us turn our focus now to the nonconvergent areas:

1. Faith requires assent. Philosophy requires dissent (i.e., "withholding assent or approval"). Admittedly, I am overgeneralizing here. A man of faith can withhold judgment and even doubt. Likewise, a philosopher can come to believe that certain conclusions and ideas are true. But philosophy simply is not philosophy without questioning, and faith simply is not faith without accepting.
2. Faith requires commitment. Philosophy needs only disinterested intelligence, free speculation and radical criticism. Disinterested intelligence assumes "that one actually could have an intelligence that pursues truth regardless of its implications for one's life or the life of one's community or country." [1] Free speculation assumes "that one can speculate without the restraints of prejudice, self-interest or prior commitment to a way of life or set of values." [2] Radical criticism "is indeed the sharpest ax in the intellectual forest, and it has been wielded so well by those masters of the hermeneutic of suspicion - Marx, Freud, Nietzsche..." [3]

The distinctions between faith and philosophy, as I have described them here, may appear to suggest that an impassible chasm exists between them. But remember the afformentioned areas of overlap. Faith and philosophy have common goals. Instead of seeing them as opponents, I argue that we should view them as partners, and that the thinker can use both as tools to come closer to discovering and understanding truth.

Defining our terms well is necessary to apprehend how this partnership between faith and philosophy can occur. Briefly, philosophy is the "love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means," and "the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs." [4] Faith requires more of our attention, since how one defines faith lies at the heart of most of the confusion. According to the Skeptic's Dictionary, "Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one which is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief. A belief is contrary to the sum of evidence for a belief if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow or is the center of the universe. A belief is also contrary to the sum of evidence if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, yet one commits to one of two or more equally supported propositions." [5] Unfortunately, the author who wrote this definition of faith for the Skeptic's Dictionary was unable to restrain his prejudice. This definition of faith at best applies only to extreme forms of fideism. At worst, it is inaccurate and misleading oversimplification. With such poor scholarship given a hearing, no wonder we see such confusion concerning the relationship of faith and philosophy. In an attempt to remedy this problem, a more complete understanding of faith is needed:

"Faith" (the Greek word pistis - also rendered "belief" in several places) is used three ways in Scripture. Three Latin words are often used to distinguish between the three understandings of faith employed by Scripture. For many readers this may be old hat; I am not offering anything new or unique here. Still, the information is important:

1. Notitia: This is a Latin word which refers to one of the uses of the word "faith" in Scripture. Notitia is the truth content or "object of faith" of a system of belief. Jude 3 exhorts Christians to "contend for the faith." Faith in this context is equivalent to the doctrine of Christianity. The book of Jude was written during a time when teachers within the church were distorting the core teachings of the faith. Jude urges his readers to uphold the core tenets of the gospel of Christ.

2. Assensus: Another Latin word, assensus refers to the use of the word faith as "what the intellect will acknowledge." Faith, in this sense, is an intellectual acceptance or assent of certain things as true. For example, Christians believe in the existence of God. They accept this as true. Now, this does not mean that Christians must accept the existence of God illogically. Different people have accepted the claims of Christianity based on different types and amounts of evidence and argumentation. Faith is not necessarily "a non-rational belief in some proposition." Faith as assensus is equivalent to accepting or believing X is true. I have already explained that faith requires assent.

James chapter 2 tells us that "even the demons believe [that there is one God] - and shudder" (2:19). This verse implies that, while faith refers to intellectual assent, assent alone is insufficient. Faith must be more. This brings us to the third understanding of faith - fiducia.

3. Fiducia: Yet another Latin word, fiducia refers to the use of faith as trust. In this sense, faith goes beyond merely accepting or believing in God's existence - faith means that one must make a conscious decision to believe God, be obedient to him, lean upon him, cling to him and trust him with one's life. This is a matter of the will more than of the intellect. Trust in God implies obedience to God. Relating to God properly requires placing one's confidence in him, much like a husband and wife place their confidence and trust in each other. Similarly, faith in God is much like a child placing his trust in his parents. It's one thing to believe God exists; it's another thing entirely to trust him during difficult times. Hebrew 11:1 tells us that faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." This verse is discussing the fiducia - the trust we place in God.

With this in mind I will attempt to demonstrate a harmony among faith and philosophy. Faith requires assent. Philosophy does not require assent, but there is nothing contradictory in the notion of an "assenting philosopher." All philosophers believe in something. How strongly they believe in that something depends on each individual philosopher.

However, faith (as fiducia) requires commitment. Faith is not merely a passive believing, but a pledge of service and trust. Philosophy, as I have said, relies upon disinterested intelligence, which implies keeping one's bias and prejudice in check (unlike our friend from the Skeptic's Dictionary). So how can a man of faith do philosophy? How can a philosopher have faith? To answer this question - and ultimately to provide a harmony among faith and philosophy - I turn to resources from both western and eastern philosophy. First, to the east:

Yin and yang - the harmony of opposites - is found in eastern philosophy. Based on a dualistic worldview, yin and yang are the two primal cosmic principles of the universe. It is claimed that the best state for all things in the universe is a state of harmony represented by a balance of yin and yang. I have no desire to advocate a dualistic worldview; however, there is much that can be said concerning how faith and philosophy, viewed as opposites, can work together in harmony.

The yang (the white side of the symbol) is the active, male principle. The yin (the black side of the symbol) is the passive, female principle. Yang represents activity, life, summer, and fire, whereas yin represents passivity, death, winter, and water.

Referring back to western philosophy, J.J.C. Smart noted two primary directives of philosophy:



NOTES:

1. James W. Sire, Habits of the Mind (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 25

2. Ibid., p. 25

3. Ibid., p. 25-26

4. Dictionary.com: Philosophy. For more on philosophy, see What is Philosophy?

5. http://skepdic.com/faith.html

6. J.P. Holding, "Fallacious Faith: Correcting an All-too-Common Misconception" ( tektonics.org)





One-Eighty Main Page