Rational vs. Irrational Faith
By Robert Ringer
In Erich Fromm’s 1956 classic The Art of Loving, he provides some unique insights into the subject of faith that have given me a lot to think about. Fromm did not believe faith is in opposition to reason or rational thinking. On the contrary, he simply made a distinction between rational faith and irrational faith.
He believed that irrational faith is based on submission to irrational authority, while rational faith is based on one’s own convictions. Rational faith is a character trait that involves one’s whole personality rather than a specific belief.
Rational faith, then, is an important component of rational thinking. In fact, Fromm believed that creative thinking begins with a “rational vision,” a vision that results from study, reflective thinking, and observation.
In other words, rational faith is rooted in one’s own experiences, thoughts, observations, and judgments. Irrational faith, on the other hand, is the acceptance of something as true only because an authority or the majority say it is.
The rational believer must have faith in his core being. He must have trust in himself — know that the person he really is will not change with changing circumstances. If we lose faith in who we are, we become dependent on others and change in ways to gain their approval. Not a good thing.
The belief in power over others is the reverse of faith. There is no rational faith in domination — either for the dominator or the dominated. To be sure, power is an all-encompassing objective for politicians and many religious leaders, but, to their dismay, it is the most unstable of all achievements.
Fromm pointed out that because having faith and having power over others are mutually exclusive objectives, all religious and political systems originally built on rational faith become corrupt and lose their strength. It would be difficult to argue that history has not supported his viewpoint, and over the next several years this will become eminently clear to all but the most brainwashed American sheeple.
What Fromm did not address head on, however, is faith in a Higher Being. Is it rational or irrational faith to believe in God? The atheist would say it is irrational, while the believer would come down on the side of rational.
But the individual who believes in a Conscious Universal Power Source could just as easily say that the atheist’s viewpoint is based on irrational faith — faith, perhaps, that the universe somehow created itself. And if the universe could create itself, is the universe not God?
But, in truth, both an atheist and a believer in a Higher Being can have rational faith in their beliefs, so long as those beliefs are based on study, reflective thinking, and observation. As I’ve said so often, I agree with Viktor Frankl’s view that there is probably not much difference between a so-called atheist and an individual who believes in God. It’s more a matter of semantics than zealous people on both sides might believe.
So, whether it’s faith in yourself, faith in your spouse, faith in a friend, faith in your future, or faith in a Conscious Universal Power Source, don’t let anyone tell you that faith is not an integral part of the human experience. Make that rational faith. And you will do your children a great service by making sure they understand and believe in rational faith from a very young age.
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
To comment on “Rational vs. Irrational Faith”, please login below:
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. If you have evidence, there is no need for faith. Now, what you may mean is belief based on probability. As a mundane example, there is a high probability that when I get out of bed in the morning I won’t crash through the floor. There is no similar probability with religion. We know that prayer has zero effect on the outcome of events from a large medical study conducted a few years ago. So, when it comes to how to conduct my life, I will base my actions on reasonable probability rather than faith.
The “first cause” argument rests on a whole chain of logical fallacies and false premises:
The first is that the positing of a god can provide a causal explanation for the universe. This merely pushes you another step further from the answer because who then created God? If it’s argued that no one created God because God exists eternally and doesn’t require a cause, you’ve left yourself no grounds to deny that the universe has existed eternally and doesn’t require a cause because your argument is assuming the very thing it is attempting to refute – that something can exist without a cause.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It doesn’t because causality presupposes existence; existence doesn’t presuppose causality. To demand a cause for all existence is to demand a contradiction – if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it doesn’t exist, it cannot be a cause. Aristotle had it right: Existence – not God – is the First Cause.
Like the most of your commentary in your newsletter this was absolutely right on the mark. I enjoyed the comparative analysis.
I think our current leadership, and I include almost every one of the elected members, the appointed judiciary, and the bureaucrats put in place by the current President (The One). It is becoming a keystone Cops routine, and if it were not so deadly serious it might even be laughable.
Ken
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kmwallin
http://www.rackofebooks.com
I’m not sure what you mean by “faith”. To me the word means “belief without proof”, which is irrational. So “rational faith” would be a contradiction in terms because what besides the emotions can produce belief when there is no proof available of the matter being questioned? And how can belief produced by emotions ever be rational?
Now I can see that one cannot reason endlessly. At some point you have to decide and act. But knowingly cutting off thought and debate because of the need to act is an abdication of reason, not its implementation. And it is for that reason full of uncertainty and danger. As that great philosopher Dirty Harry Callahan said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
The Biblical definition of faith is “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.”
As a University sophomore in 1962, I encountered the first atheists I had ever met. I had grown up in a small town where everyone believed in God.
I was so perplexed that I set about to scientifically prove that there was a God; I hoped that I could then persuade these people to believe.
After a great deal of thought I arrived at the following scientific proof using inductive reasoning.
1) I believed that there was a God; 2)I believed that the Bible was the Word of God; 3) I had followed the plan set out in the Bible; 4) I had received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues just as promised in the Bible without having studied the language I spoke.
The problem was that this only worked for me personally because belief (faith) was required for this proof.
Later I realized that others had come to the same conclusion deductively by simply searching for something to fill the empty void in their life.
So there is scientific proof that there is a God, but each individual must first have faith and believe.
In a secular example, if a person is to be successful in a business or other endeavor, they must first have a vision of what they desire to attain and “faith” that they will attain it.
Faith is a gift from God, but there is evidence of God, it’s in the bible. Also, faith and reason aren’t mutualy exclusive. You can a have faith just from teaching from an authority. For example, in first grade, it was self-evident that two apples and two apples equaled four apples. But when I was first told the world was round, I had to take it on faith. Self-interest also became self-evident after the examples in “Looking out for #1″ How Bill O’Reilly got it wrong in his book, “Who’s Looking Out For You?” I can’t figure.
“Rational faith”? Sounds like “libertarian paternalism” and “scientific creationism”…oxymoronic.
I will never tell anyone that “faith is not an integral part of the human experience”, as that would be self-evidently false.
Instead, I would say that faith/belief plays a large part in why the human experience has not changed much, and probably won’t.
As for helpful Erics, much more to be gleaned from Hoffer (than Fromm):
“Both Faith and Terror are instruments for the elimination of individual self-respect. Terror crushes the autonomy of self-respect, while Faith obtains its more or less voluntary surrender. In both cases the result of the elimination of individual autonomy is – automatism. Both Faith and Terror reduce the human entity to a formula that can be manipulated at will.”
Everyone lives by faith–even those who deny they do. The atheist believes there is no God and expresses his views with as much belief in them as the creationist who believes in God.
“Rational faith is rooted in one’s own experiences, thoughts, observations, and judgments,” said Ringer. Both the atheist and the creation look at the universe, its wonders and its immutable laws, and arrive at differing conclusions on how the present state of things came to be.
Neither the athist nor the creationist can prove how it all started. They both observe the world around them, the facts are irrefutable although the interpretaion of facts differ, and draw conclusions based on what they see and their experiences. This is faith based on facts, or rather, the interpretation of facts. Either way it is faith–reasoned or rational faith.
By the way, science has not proven the Big Bany theory although it is nearly universally accepted. Nor has Darwinian evolution clearly shown the evolution of man (or other animals for that matter). These concepts are accepted today because everyone is repeating them. Faith in them without examining the facts for themselves. Very dangerous.
“Error, oft repeated and left unchallenged, is eventually preceived to be truth.”–Ron Don’t buy into the common refrain without examining the facts for yourself. Simply look at the design, order and wonder of the universe (even a small component of it like the human body and its systems) and you will say there is a God. Or, you won’t.
Reunion–I have to disagree with your last point. Faith, at least Christianity, teaches that human worth comes from the Creator of the universe Himself. It cannot be given or taken away by man or by human institutions, and isn’t determined by status or circumstances in life.
We’re made in the image of God, He considers us worthy enough to seek a relationship with us even in the midst of ALL of our flaws and sinfulness, and we’re dearly loved by Him.
By extension, we’re to have the same view of others, although I’ll admit that we don’t always do such a good job with it. Though we may be followers of Jesus Christ, we’re still (and always will be) human, and carrying imperfection in our being. Those imperfections are readily observed and heralded as “evidence” of the hypocrisy of faith, despite that fact that non-believers display the same level of evil and hypocrisy.
Other than the hollow self-esteem philosophies that are foisted on kids in the school system, you will not hear of cohesive philosophies or systems in the human realm that tell an individual that he or she truly matters in the grand scheme of existence, other than as a result of either loyal compliance or measureable achievement.
Also, I have to agree with Charles and MeMeMe, that each of us receives affirmations of our faith in our lives. But I’ll add that those affirmations are 1) recognized and understood by other believers, and 2) summarily dismissed by non-believers as irrational ramblings.
I for one feel that my faith has caused me to develop a more independent spirit in life because my mind is no longer controlled by worldly doctrines. Faith gives you the ability to step outside the fray and to see things you can’t when all your hopes and dreams are colored by earthly doctrines and tied up in a certain worldy outcome.
BTW, because of my faith, I’ve also found myself increasing my view of the worth of others, even if they’re non believers. After all, if there is a Creator, and I’m a sinner, who am I to look down on anyone???
I am a firm believer in GOD as viewed in LDS theology.Noodleman’s definition of faith as already pointed out was biblically incorrect as already pointed out, substance of things hoped for, EVIDENCE of things not seen, like feeling the wind on your face or the sun.
However I call myself Ayn Randian LDS, (talk about a contradiction in terms) and in my view fatih cannot override reason otherwise you begin to have Osama bin ladens and people killing doctors providing abortion etc.
Faith and reason are parallel and don’t intersect. If GOD is talking to you I find it unlikely that he will tell you to ignore the brain he gave you.
I’m trying not to write a book here.
KevinM, worldly, or otherworldly (as a long succession of men, including you, have asserted to each other), it is still a doctrine, as you correctly point out, and its product is not, nor has it ever been, independence. Hoffer turns out to be a font of wisdom distilled to aphorism – here is one that applies:
“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his own envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”
Ron, the critically important difference between science and the faithful is the size of the respective libraries…science has millions of volumes and will never cease adding volumes, searching for answers, truth, while the faithful have a single book, and claim to know all the answers. “Beware the man of one book.”
Reunion–”the critically important difference between science and the faithful is the size of the respective libraries…science has millions of volumes and will never cease adding volumes, searching for answers, truth, while the faithful have a single book, and claim to know all the answers.”
All of those science books you herald represent the knowledge of the day–what is known as of a point in time, subject to change as new information comes in. Just because there are millions of books doesn’t lend credibility to a subject, especially considering how diffuse they are. Mostly, they represent interest–that’s different from truth and even from knowledge. Most books represent opinions or interpretations. And there’s a money trail behind publishing that can’t be ignored either.
As to the “man of one book”–I read the bible, but I also read other books, many of them reference books. When I read the bible, I’m not looking for knowledge, I’m looking for Truth. The truth doesn’t need to be proven, it stands on it’s own. When I read reference books or any other non-faith works, I’m looking for knowledge, interpretations and opinions–but I rarely find truth in any of that.
So I can read my bible, as well as other books, and there’s no conflict. I’ll read the scientific theories, the interpretations, and the opinions of non-faith sources, and I’ll enjoy and benefit from them while I’m comfortably snuggled in the Truth that the Bible offers up. Try it–it’s a pretty cool way to live. And it requires a much more open mind than most pure secular types assume.
KevinM, the number of volumes isn’t a quantity argument, it’s a process argument. And the point is that the process is on-going, which is why there are so many volumes. So, yes, by definition, every time you look, it’s a snapshot, and in the next instant, the picture will have changed to incorporate new discoveries, reflect new understandings.
the one-book approach isn’t a process – it’s a conclusion, about everything, that would, if it could, as it did in it’s glory days, impede process and progress.
Galileo was forced, under threat of torture by the Inquisition, to recant his knowledge that the universe is heliocentric – not geocentric, as the one-bookers insisted, at the time – and spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. He looked for, discovered and shared some Truth, which also happened to chip away some of the claimed authority of the one-book “Truth”, and the one-bookers almost murdered him for it.
Nothing “stands on its own”. You are entitled to whatever you can defend, or whatever your subcontractors can defend, as the case may be. and when defenses crumble, as they often do in science, integrity alone should be enough to motivate abandonment of the position…but since integrity is rare, *science is backed up by its method, in peer review and independent replication of experiments/results.
the one-book approach lacks integrity and has no compensatory mechanism. it is rote and catechism. frozen. fossilized. it should be extinct. but there has been so little progress, evolution from those people who invented what’s contained in the various competing one-books, ages ago, and people now, that it lives on. In fact, it has expanded greatly, into the so-called secular realm (politics, for example – just another religion…).
*actual science – not the politically correct, tax ‘subsidized’ pollution we get so much exposure to….
Ionchambers’ criticism of Noodleman’s comment is erroneous. Attempting to quote the Bible to “prove” the truth of the claims therein is an elementary logical fallacy known as “circulus in demonstrando” (circular reasoning).
Your examples of the Sun and wind as examples of “things not seen” fail miserably- we can see, feel, and objectively measure the Sun and wind. There is limitless evidence of a purely natural universe, but none of the supernatural.
If all you mean by “faith” is hope, you are distorting your position by euphemistically referring to it as “faith”. Just call it “hope.” Regardless, it is epistemologically invalid as a source of knowledge.
If you have evidence that would be acceptable to science or in a court of law, feel free to present it. Otherwise, you might as well claim the existence of Isis, Zeus, or the Great Pumpkin.