Reason and Religious Beliefs Systems

Fideism vs. Rationalism

Is rationalism or fideism the best response to examining religious beliefs systems?

Fideism and rationality are both divergent and complementary philosophies that helps us understand religious systems. Fideism is faith in the unseen. It is based in inspiration and trust, often without solid evidence. Under fideism, faith is necessary even when circumstances point to the contrary. Rationality, on the other hand, is based on reason and typically requires tangible proof and evidence. It demands factual analysis and shuns blind faith, tradition and religion alone.

The Christian faith, as an example, asks believers to await the coming of Christ in glory and fulfillment of God's purpose for the world. This is faith in the unseen. A rationalist, by contrast, views Biblical accounts more as historical event that are trusted as having happened. However, from their standpoint the Bible was written in a particular time period and its messages, meanings and interpretations should be viewed for their metaphorical and historical context, not necessarily taken literally. Without scientific evidence, much of religion cannot be viewed as absolute truth.

Christian believers accept a traditional understanding of God as omnipotent and omniscient. As mankind has become increasingly unhappy with society's ills -- crime, evil, violence, hatred, and death -- believers turn to faith rooted in peace and justice. This utopian vision for the future is believed despite everyday evidence to the contrary. The conviction comes from belief in Biblical promises, which a pure rationalist questions altogether. He or she would argue that the belief that the sun will rise each morning, for example, is not a belief we hold through faith. The belief is derived from observations of the consistency of the sun rising each day, not because of having mere faith that it will. Thus, we see where rationalism and fideism differ.

Rationalists lean on the principle of intellect. They operate from the standpoint of "I think therefore I am," which basically does not require any faith at all. Reason can also be challenged through the introduction of new evidence (Hallanger 128). Reason is a more flexible lens through which to view the world and religion -- and convictions can be influenced by observation and information. Rationalists view faith as wishful thinking or imaginary craziness that confuses things. For believers, faith touches areas that science and rationality cannot. Faith is the answer to questions when all other answers, explanations and arguments fail.

Still, most religions land somewhere in the middle, making both fideism and rationality important ideologies for understanding religious systems altogether. For instance, the Catholic Church teaches that faith and reason should work in harmony. St. Thomas Aquinas, was the first to write of the relationship, differences, and similarities between faith and reason. Some of his more noteworthy works include the De Veritate and Summa contra Gentiles. For Aquinas, religion was a matter of intellect enriched and made more meaningful by faith. In his Summa Theologica, he wrote:

We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than by natural reason. Which is proved thus. The knowledge which we have by natural reason contains two things: images derived from the sensible objects; and the natural intelligible light, enabling us to abstract from them intelligible conceptions. Now in both of these, human knowledge is assisted by the revelation of grace. For the intellect's natural light is strengthened by the infusion of gratuitous light (12).

Many great religious thinkers, such as Aquinas, help us to appreciate the underlying rationality of fideism. All human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith. This is because we have faith in our senses, reasoning, experiences, memories, and information gained from interacting and speaking with others. Thus, faith is an integral part of rationality.

To fully answer the question of whether fideism or rationality is better equipped to help mankind understand religious systems, perhaps the best view is akin to that of Aquinas where both fideism and rationality are essential -- co-actors that help us understand religion. They complement each other and advance our religious understanding. Blind faith could be classified as mere superstition. Similarly, reason absent of faith could lead to anarchism or relativism in which all beliefs are uncertain no belief is justified.