Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

RESOLVED: FAITH AND REASON ARE IRRECONCILABLE.

Background:

It has been almost ten months since I have engaged in a debate, but this a topic that I am invested enough in to discuss at length with anyone who is up for the challenge.

My interest in this topic began out of this forum thread: http://www.debate.org... and I will probably draw from it significantly in my argument. (FYI: The good stuff is on page 5.)

I would prefer that I debate this with someone who actually disagrees with this position, but who understands the topic enough to offer a well considered perspective.

If you don’t meet the criteria but wish to accept the debate, then post in the comment section and I’ll make the necessary arrangements if needed. I more or less want to be sure that someone doesn’t accept the debate for imprudent reasons, and the high qualifications are the best insurance policy to that end.

Analysis of the Resolution:

The burden of proof is equally shared among both competitors. I must argue that the resolution is the case. My opponent must argue that the resolution is not the case. Arguments should not deviate from the resolution at hand. This means that I, the affirmative, must argue that faith and reason are irreconcilable. My opponent must argue that faith and reason are not irreconcilable. Simply, that faith and reason can be reconciled or support one another.

The Parameters of the Debate:

Round 1 will be reserved for acceptance and various other formalities, but no arguments should be introduced. Subsequent rounds should be used for debate, and no new arguments should be introduced in the conclusion, in keeping with basic argumentative decorum.

I do foresee that, in the interest of clarity, concepts will need to be defined (and probably in rounds beyond the first round of debate). Semantics should be avoided, although conceptual clash is welcome. That shouldn’t be confused for quibbling over what is or is not the proper definition of a word. Assaults on the dictionary should be avoided.

In re Sources:

Sources, should they become necessary (and I anticipate that they will) may be posted in the comment section, but should be referenced in text.

For example, In the Text of the Debate:

Ludwig Wittgenstein, in the “Tractatus” wrote “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.” (1)

In the Comment Section:

(1) Wittgenstein, Ludwig. “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.” London, pp. 162. (1922)(Accessed online at: http://www.gutenberg.org...)

Basically, just provide enough information that I can easily identify and keep track of what sources are employed, where they can be accessed, and etc. This would best be done in a standardized way, similar (but not necessarily akin to) to Chicago style. Sources should be numbered and ordered.

Additional Things to Take Note of:

Arguments should be evaluated on the degree to which they support or undermine the resolution.

While sources may support arguments, this should not devolve into a source war. Arguments should be judged on their own merit.

Arguments that are tangential to the topic at hand should not be considered by judges.

There should be no lawyering, in the sense that neither competitor should be given an automatic win or loss for a rule/conduct violation unless a forfeiture occurs.

Debaters may use the comment section to ask for clarification from their opponent, and are not precluded from engaging in commentary with observers.

I thank my opponent for acceptance.

(1) Faith and Reason are Irreconcilable Faculties of Acceptance

Faith, properly defined and understood is the acceptance of something for which there is no evidence. To have faith, then, is to believe and accept in the absence of evidence. To know, is to believe and accept on the basis of evidence derived through a process of reason. Only where evidence exists can knowledge be formed. Evidence exists where empirical observations (information which can be obtained by observation or experiment) support a logically cogent conclusions. That which can be empirically observed is necessarily limited to the physical world, and thus necessarily limits that which can be empirically proven (facts, what is known or the truth) to the materially physical. In essence, the only truth (empirically observable knowledge) we can derive for ourselves (by means of reason) pertains to the physical world, because that is the scope of our observational reach.

(2) The Empirical Limits of Reason and Functional Difference of Faith

Both faith and reason are means to belief, but what differentiates beliefs are the foundations upon which they are cast. Belief taken on faith in the absence of evidence is distinct from belief taken on evidence, derived through reason. What is beyond the scope of our evidentiary reach is the metaphysical. Knowledge (known facts or information) has the unique characteristic of being falsifiable. Metaphysical postulations (beliefs taken on faith) do not. Morals, spirituality, God, all things which cannot be empirically observed, transcend the physical, and thus if we are to accept that they exist, we must do so on the basis of faith, because there can exist no empirical evidence for their existence. Thus exists the divergence between the physical and the non-physical, i.e. the metaphysical.

(3) Believing and Knowing

To “believe” is simply to accept something as true. To “know” is to be aware (or believe and accept) through observation of evidence through the process of reason. We cannot ‘know’ that which we cannot empirically observe, which highlights the difference between ‘believing’ and ‘knowing’. While we can believe anything on any basis, regardless of wether it is factual or not, we cannot know that which cannot be proven. To be “proven” requires the characteristic of empirical demonstrability, whereas to be “believed” only requires individual acceptance of validity with or without proof. To clarify, to have faith is to believe without proof, whereas to know is to believe with proof. Recall, though, that the metaphysical is beyond the physical world, which means that all statements pertaining to the metaphysical (that which is not or beyond the physical) are beyond empirical proof. To have faith is to believe in the absence of evidence. In consequence, we cannot “know” what must be taken on faith by the same means that we know what has evidence.

(4) Only through the application of reason to empirical evidence can fact or truth be derived

To reason, is to systematically form judgements by a process of logic whereby conclusions of fact (or truth) result. Statements of fact (in philosophy, referred to as positive statements) are descriptive declarations of what empirically is. To explain further, a statement of fact (or positive statement) is something which is observable and provable by empirical means, something which is known, and something which cannot be disproven.

(5) The Normative Limitations of the Application of Reason to the Metaphysical

In contrast to fact normative claims are statements which are not empirically provable and thus cannot be statements of fact, meaning that they cannot be objectively known. While normative arguments may be persuasive, and certainly have tremendous potential to influence what a person believes, they are not, nor can they be, statements of fact. Normative claims cannot be proven or tested, nor are they falsifiable. Normative claims are and cannot be supported by observation, nor can they be proven or disproven because if they were supported by observation, and could be proven or disproven, then they would be empirical statements. (Hence the conceptual mutual exclusivity of the normative and the empirical.) In an argument, normative statements or claims are -in functional terms- reasons devoid of evidence. Thus, normative claims cannot be true or false. At best, they are postulations (things suggested or assumed as true); but they are not and cannot be facts (statements of truth).

We can postulate (normatively, of course) that about the metaphysical, but we cannot make statements of fact about the metaphysical because there exists no evidence to apply reason to. But, for something’s existence to be objectively true, it must be empirically provable. We can refine arguments though logical processes based on normative assumptions to further clarify normative arguments. We, perhaps can even derive new normative arguments from normative assumptions, but in no way can those normative claims have any capacity to state truth. Normative claims, however, are the limit that man can, of his own volition, make in regard to the metaphysical. Thus, while man may apply reason to assumptions taken on faith, objective truth (statements of fact) can not be derived from that which is not empirically grounded. Moreover, because normative arguments transcend empirics, they are insufficient to derive objective metaphysical truth. Metaphysical truth, then, is unattainable for man’s lack of foundational access.

(6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to Annals of the Physical

Reason is the process by which facts may be known through the application of reason to the empirical world. Knowledge requires reason’s application to the empirical world, whereas mere belief by the faculty of faith does not require reason’s application, or empirical observation -only acceptance. Acceptance does not necessitate proof, whereas for knowledge to be knowledge, it must be proven. Hence, the epistemological limitation of faith is realized in that faith functionally jumps the process of reason for lack of evidence, where information is accepted without proof.

Faith and Reason, In summery

Faith and reason are both faculties by which belief may be justified. The divergence, and inherent irreconcilability between faith and reason is highlighted (1) by the means by which they ordain belief, (2) the characteristics of those means and (3) the multiple divergent spheres in which they operate. Faith does not require evidence, or apply reason to that evidence to form conclusions (the beliefs which are accepted as a result of faith). While plausibly any conclusion about anything from anyone may be formed on the basis of faith, those beliefs which can only be taken on faith occupy the realm of conception which is beyond the physical world, and thus is necessarily metaphysical. In contrast, fact which can be known as true is provably so, by means of the application of reason to the empirical, or that which can be physically observed. Secondly, the only statements which can be made about the metaphysical (that which is beyond human observation which must be accepted on the basis of faith) are necessarily normative, they can neither be proven or disproven, but only can be postulated upon. The physical world, however, can be empirically observed, and thus reason can be applied to those observations, to form conclusions which are true. Accurate observations about the physical world are repeatable and falsifiable, and are objectively the case. Normative postulations are necessarily subjective and not falsifiable, because they do not enjoy empirical foundation. Thirdly, and finally, because operational spheres of faith and reason are mutually exclusive ([Reason: physical, objective, empirical] v. [Faith: metaphysical, subjective, normative]), they are conceptually irreconcilable.

I want to begin by thanking my opponent for his argument.

(1, 2) The Limits and Differences of Faith and Reason

To begin, I didn’t take note to provide sources for my definitions of faith and reason, because the definitions of faith and reason are not up for dispute. However, in the interest of clarity, I will provide the source of my definition. The Oxford Dictionary (citation in comments) defines faith as the following:

“strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.” (1)

My opponent is correct to assert that “faith denotes trust” but incorrect in the assumption that empirical evidence can exist to prove or disprove the metaphysical. Because empirical evidence can exist only for the physical world, and God (understood a metaphysical being) is beyond the physical world, it is faulty to assert that empirical proof even could exist for the existence or non-existence of God. Contrary to my opponent’s belief, scripture is not empirical evidence, because scripture must be accepted (for what it claims to be) on the basis of faith, just as the existence of God must be accepted on the basis of faith.

Moreover, the existence of the universe is proof neither for or against the existence of God. The same holds for the existence of morality. His argument, like all arguments for the existence of God, assumes the existence of God to prove the existence of God, making his reasoning inescapably circular. While one can apply reason to what is accepted on faith, such claims are normative, rather than positive. They are not descriptions of what empirically is, but rather are postulations on the unknown. As such, that which is believed on faith is not sufficient to articulate what can be known, because all that can be known is that for which there is empirical evidence.

(3) Believing and Knowing

The Bible is not empirical evidence because empirical evidence can be objectively verified, and the sole basis of authority of the Bible is itself. While one may accept that the Bible is what it claims to be on the basis of faith. Because I have already pointed out the circular nature of the argument that the universe is proof of God’s existence, in the interest of preserving character space, I will not repeat what has been covered above.

Additionally, my opponent asserts that “Christianity is not a religion of blind faith.” While well intended, faith, by its nature is necessarily blind (where blind is understood to mean ‘based on conviction’ rather than ‘proof’ as denoted by the Oxford Dictionary provided above).

I would also submit that this is not a trial of Christianity, and as such further references to specified religions (or their spiritual texts) are tangential to this debate. One cannot assert that faith and reason are reconcilable because a book -whose authority is necessarily based on faith alone- says that is the case. To do so would be to structure a fallacious appeal to authority (because that authority cannot be substantiated on an empirical basis) within a circular argument.

(4) Only Through The Application Of Reason To Empirical Evidence Can Fact Be Derived

My opponent asserts that “philosophical evidence is as much evidence as empirical evidence is.” He bases this on the assertion that “to reason does not only require empirical evidence.” While my opponent is correct that one may apply reason to normative (non-positive) claims, he misunderstands what may result from that endeavor. All that can be known is derived through the processes of reason to empirical evidence. As such, the limits of what is knowable begins and ends with the physical world. That which is metaphysical (beyond the physical) is unknowable. Again, this is the difference between what can be known, and what must be taken on the basis of faith. What is unknown (that which cannot be known), if accepted or believed, must be done so on the basis of faith. I will address my opponent’s mentioning of the Big Bang Theory in pt. 5.

(5) The Normative Limits of the Application of Faith to the Metaphysical

I agree with my opponent’s assertion that the Big Bang Theory is not empirically provable, because the Big Bang Theory is a theory, not a scientific law. Scientific laws are simply statements that phenomena occur. Theories, by contrast, are themselves postulations, or suppositions intended to explain something, based on general principles independent of that which is to be explained. Theories themselves, however, cannot be proven. Theories are called theories because they are not empirically provable, for if they were empirically provable, they would be laws. Such is the reason that the scientific community recognizes the distinction. However, discussion of the Big Bang theory is tangential to this debate because it does not speak to the irreconcilability of faith and reason. The Holocaust, by contrast, is a matter of indisputable historical record for which there is prolific video recordings, primary source evidence, and etc. To say that there is no evidence for the Holocaust is absurd.

(6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to the Physical

My opponent is correct to assert that “information can be accepted without proof” because that is what makes “faith” which is necessarily blind. One can certainly trust anything they want, but only through the application of reason to empirical evidence can facts be known. Such is the distinction between believing and knowing, which I have explicated above. To clarify, however, a belief may be believed with or without evidence. By contrast, that which can be known is necessarily grounded in evidence. (That is not to preclude the possibility of the application of reason to beliefs taken on faith, only that any conclusions therein would be normative rather than positive.)

However, one should not misunderstand the application of reason to that which must be taken on faith to suggest that faith and reason are reconcilable, because of the functional differences in outcome between the application of reason to empirical evidence versus the application of faith to that for which empirical evidence cannot exist.

Conclusion:

Reason does not lead to faith. The application of reason to empirical facts leads to knowledge (positive claims, or statements of what can be known). The application of reason to that for which no empirical evidence exists leads to conclusions for which there is no evidence (normative claims, or statements which can be neither proven or disproven). As such, reason is the means by which to derive facts (positive statements) from empirical evidence, or derive normative statements from normative statements. While faith and reason are both faculties by which belief may be justified, the divergence, and inherent irreconcilability between faith and reason is highlighted (1) by the means by which they ordain belief, (2) the characteristics of those means and (3) the multiple divergent spheres in which they operate. Faith does not require evidence, or apply reason to that evidence to form conclusions (the beliefs which are accepted as a result of faith). In contrast, fact which can be known as true is provably the case, by means of the application of reason to empirical evidence, or that which can be physically observed. The only statements which can be made about the metaphysical (that which is beyond human observation which must be accepted on the basis of faith) are necessarily normative, meaning that they can neither be proven or disproven, but only can be postulated upon. Normative postulations are necessarily subjective and not falsifiable, because they do not bear an empirical foundation, meaning that they cannot be or result in fact. In essence because of the existent divergence between the operational spheres of faith and reason, they are mutually exclusive ([Reason: physical, objective, empirical] v. [Faith: metaphysical, subjective, normative]), making them conceptually irreconcilable.

I thank my opponent for his response.

Before I begin, there are some noteworthy things which must be pointed out:

Firstly, this debate is not a trial of Christianity or belief in any specific God.
Secondly, I want to emphasize that this debate is not a test of the faith of my opponent.


(1, 2) The Limits and Differences of Faith and Reason

While con asserts that one “can... place faith in something after viewing the evidence” because “the only way to restore one's faith in something is to do it through reason and evidence,” it is the case that to accept anything on the basis of evidence is to know, rather than to have faith in that which is accepted. I reiterate that to know something is to believe on the basis of evidence, whereas to have faith is to believe in the absence of evidence. Reason is the vehicle connecting what evidence, and what is known. Faith is the vehicle connecting what is unknown (that for which there is no evidence) to that which is believed. Thus, faith and reason govern divergent spheres of function, and are thus conceptually irreconcilable.

While it may be the case that con believes in God, empirical evidence (evidence methodologically obtained that is testable and repeatable) for the existence of God is nonexistent. Empirical reach begins and ends in the physical world, and God is metaphysical in nature. As such, while some may believe in God, God’s existence can not be known because it cannot be proven empirically. As such if one believes in God, they must do so on the basis of faith. Con accepts this by stating: “The only reason God must be accepted on the basis of faith is because you cannot prove His existence beyond the shadow of a doubt.” I would reiterate, however, that this is not a trial of religion or faith and arguments for any specific religion or faith are tangential to this debate.

(3, 4) Believing & Knowing, Positive & Normative

Con’s assertion in (2) that “Philosophical evidence for God's existence is evidence, nonetheless” confuses the functional distinction between positive and normative claims. Positive statements are statements of what empirically is, whereas normative statements are unverifiable.

Statements for or against the existence of God are unverifiable. The authority of the Bible is itself, and as such it’s authority is necessarily circular. Because it can neither be proven or disproven that the Bible is the word of God, it must be accepted on the basis of faith that it is what it claims to be.

Con’s assertion that faith is not blind contradicts the definition of faith. Faith is blind (believing without evidence), for if that which was believed, was believed on the basis of evidence, it would not be faith. (See definition above.)

Furthermore, con misapplies a peculiar form of Cartesian doubt to form his assertion that “the fact alone that we are able to question our own existence points to a God.” In that rite, con is attempting to postulate on the metaphysical, based on the existence of the physical.

It is self evident that our knowledge of the world, begins and ends with the physical, because the physical is all that we can empirically observe. Conclusions on the metaphysical cannot be derived from the physical, because the epistemological divergence between the two. We can positively assert that the physical world exists, but our postulations on the metaphysical are necessarily normative.

(5) The Normative Limits of Faith

While it is the case that man cannot go back in time to witness the Holocaust, pro confuses the functions of historical record with empirical knowledge. While I grant that historical record is plausibly suspect because it is largely testimonial based, the occurrence or non-occurrence of the Holocaust is not sufficient reconcile faith with reason because to accept or deny the validity historical record is academically and intellectually incongruent with accepting or not accepting any religion.

In re the Big Bang Theory, I remind my opponent of the distinction between scientific theory and law. Scientific laws are empirically provable statements THAT phenomena occur, whereas theory attempts to explain WHY phenomena occur. Theory, by definition, is not empirically provable. To assert that it ought to be rejected on the standard of empirical provability confuses the concepts of theory and law.

(6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to the Physical

Con is correct to distinguish belief and faith. Belief is acceptance of something. To have faith in something is the basis of something in the absence of empirical proof. To know something is to accept something on the basis of empirical proof. As such, faith is the faculty to belief without evidence. Reason is the faculty to knowledge via evidence.

While con may interpret his subjective experience as evidence for the metaphysical, he is doing so on the basis of faith, because physical evidence does not and cannot speak to the metaphysical in any way. (I further emphasize that even though con may personally believe something, his belief is not sufficient to make that belief objectively the case.)

Simply, the physical is not sufficient (and thus incapible) to speak to the metaphysical in any way.

Conclusion

Faith is the faculty to belief without empirical evidence. Reason is the faculty to belief with evidence. As such, faith and reason govern divergent spheres, and are thus conceptually irreconcilable. I thank my opponent for a stimulating, and intriguing debate.