Faith, Reason, and the Nature of Truth, Essay Example

It is interesting from an historical perspective, to witness the contemporary public discourse about politics in the United States. As the nation has grown increasingly polarized politically, a growing chasm has emerged that divides those who accept faith –specifically, religious faith- as the primary underpinning of their belief system about the world from those who accept reason –specifically, scientific reason- as theirs.  It seems nearly unfathomable that, at the dawn of the 21^stcentury, public debate is raging over such issues as the teaching of so-called “intelligent design” (which is nothing more than a term used to camouflage the teaching of Biblical Creationism)  as a supposed alternative to the theory of natural selection. Debates of this nature, however, highlight a fundamental philosophical question: how do we know something to be true? Throughout history, religious figures, poets, scientists, philosophers, and others have attempted to provide answers to the question of how human beings can find and know the truth. Just as there is a multiplicity of individuals who have attempted to address such questions, there are innumerable –and often conflicting- answers.

Much of this history of Western civilization has been shaped by and defined by religion, and by the institutions and organizations that have predicated their existence on the promotion of religion. For centuries, the Catholic Church was the arbiter of truth; the teachings of the Church had not just religious significance, but political, social, economic, and cultural significance as well. Nearly every aspect of human endeavor was directed or influenced by the Church. Art, literature, social customs, and political structures were all centered on the power of the papacy in Rome.  Even when revolutionary figures such as Martin Luther sought to challenge the hegemony of the Catholic Church, they did so by challenging the human manifestations of Biblical teachings, not the teachings themselves. Martin Luther was not interested in undermining the notion of religious faith; he simply strove to overturn what he saw as the excesses of those who held power in the Church, such as the selling of indulgences. Luther was driven to seek the truth as he saw it, and that truth was grounded entirely in religious faith. For Luther, the search for truth was based on his belief in God; no more proof or evidence was required.

While Luther challenged the practices of the Church on grounds of faith and Biblical teachings, others in roughly the same time period were challenging the teachings of the Church on scientific grounds. In the book “De Revolutionibus,” Nicolaus Copernicus openly questioned the prevailing view of the universe as established by the Church. According to the teachings of Catholicism, the Earth stood at the center of the universe, and all the heavenly bodies moved around the Earth. Such a notion aligned well with the philosophical and theological underpinnings of Catholicism specifically, and Christianity in general. The Biblical tale of Genesis described a world, and an entire universe, created solely and specifically for the benefit of humanity. Everything in the physical world, from the plants and animals populating the Earth to the sun, moon, and stars were there for man’s amusement, pleasure, or other benefit.

These teachings were not simply believed to be the truth for those adhered to Catholicism; they simply were the truth. Such is the nature of faith that it can so overwhelmingly supplant attempts to seek the truth through reason or scientific inquiry.  Copernicus did not necessarily develop his ideas about the nature of the universe out of a lack of faith; rather, he simply found evidence that contradicted the prevailing views of his day that were based on faith. Copernicus was only able to go so far in elucidating a clear, accurate picture of the universe, but he did come to understand that the Sun did not move around the Earth as the Church taught its followers. The heliocentric view that Copernicus developed asserted that the Earth moved around the sun, an assertion that was dangerously blasphemous. In essence, Copernicus was not just questioning the teachings of the Church; he was questioning the truth.  This demonstrates just how fragile out understanding of the truth is, and how easily what we know to be true can be undermined.

Copernicus’ quest to understand the true nature of the physical universe was predicated on the application of mathematical models, scientific calculations, and logical reasoning. Subsequent researchers and truth-seekers would build on these ideas to further expand our underrating of the world around us. In the 17^th century, Galileo began to experiment with telescopes, and his examinations of the heavens brought him to the realization that much of the widely-accepted truth about the universe was, simply, false. Galileo, like Copernicus, understood that the heliocentric model of the universe was simply an observable fact, yet he also understood that it stood at odds with the teachings of the Church. Galileo authored a document that would come to be known simply as “the Letter,” in which he defended his own ideas about the heliocentric model. He explained, quite directly, that his ideas were nothing more than observations made possible by advances in telescopic technology and other methods. Galileo made it clear that he simply “discovered” these things, and had not “placed these things in the sky” himself. Such assertions highlight the fundamental discrepancies between accepting things on faith and making determinations about the truth based on verifiable observation.

Galileo’s writings about what he discovered would, not surprisingly, lead to great consternation in the Church, and he was eventually tried for heresy and sent to prison. Despite this, however, the ideas espoused by Copernicus, Galileo, and others would eventually come to be seen as the truth, with even the Catholic Church eventually relenting and reversing its position on Galileo and heliocentrism. As Galileo saw it, “physical matters” were something where “faith is not involved.”  In his view, faith and reason were not entirely incompatible, so long as reason did not have to be “abandoned” in order to satisfy the erroneous teachings of the faithful. On a deeper level, Galileo was challenging the manner in which the Bible itself was interpreted or understood, and promoting the idea that when reason undermines a biblical interpretation of the nature of the universe, it does not mean that the Bible itself is being undermined. In short, Galileo was arguing that faith and reason can be compatible, but blind faith and reason cannot.

Another figure who gave great consideration to the power of reason and its relationship to faith and religion was Francis Bacon. According to Bacon, “there era and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth.” These two ways are based on how what we perceive with the senses are interpreted and understood. As Bacon saw it, the “most general axioms” should be “the last of all,” and are the rules about the order and nature of the universe. Bacon wrote that “it is idle to expect and great advancement in science from the superinducing and engrafting of new things upon old. We must begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve forever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress.” For someone who argued vociferously in favor of the divine right of kings to rule, Bacon’s assertions about making “great advancement(s) in science” was not just contradictory, it was revolutionary.

Bacon’s pronouncements about the “idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding” seem, at least on the surface, to be questioning the notion of accepting anything on mere religious faith (or faith of any form). Bacon identified his “four idols” of the Tribe, the Cave, the Marketplace and the Theater as a means of describing the fundamental prejudices and beliefs that stood in the way of making the “great advancement(s)” he supported. These idols must be questioned and when necessary, discarded in favor of scientific reasoning. The nature of the universe simply is what it is, and humankind’s understanding of the universe was the only thing that was malleable or questionable.

Rene Descartes was a 17^th-century philosopher and scientist who devoted much of his mental energy to understanding the nature of the physical world. Like Bacon and other proponents of the scientific revolution, Descartes rejected the idea of accepting something as true based solely on faith; unlike some of his contemporaries, however, Descartes also rejected the notion that the sense alone could be trusted to provide access to the truth. Cartesian dualism proposed a balance between the mind and the body, a notion that could also be seen as a duality between the spiritual and the physical. This duality was uniquely human, according to Descartes; as he saw it, the capacity for self-awareness was greater proof of existence than the information available from the physical senses.

By charting the courses of the lives and the written works of individuals such as Luther, Bacon, Descartes, and others, it is possible to chart the evolution of the human understanding of the truth. Throughout history, human beings have sought to understand the nature of the universe, and have used observations of the world as the basis of that understanding. The fundamental change that took place beginning in the 15h and 16^th century was that established truths that conflicted with increasingly-sophisticated observations of the world began to be questioned. This process was a slow one, and to some degree it started with Luther’s attacks on the infallibility of the Church. Over the subsequent centuries, reason and logic continued to undermine what had been seen as the truth, and established a new set of criteria for determining what is true. The scientific revolution has shown that faith alone is an impediment to the truth, and must be tempered with reason. Viewing the world through the lenses of science and reason makes it possible to get closer to the truth, while also demonstrating that the only real constant is change. Truth that is not subject to questioning and challenge is not truth; it is faith. In order to know that something is true, one must be willing to consider the possibility that it is not true. Only by ceaselessly challenging the truth can the truth ever be known.