Right
after the New Year another discussion popped up about the respective roles of
faith and reason. Both have their
place. It’s just not the same place. As we might have mentioned once or twice on
this blog with respect to how the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the
United States, has been egregiously misused, you don’t use a tool designed for
one thing to do another.
Reason
is the “tool” intended to be applied to those things that are “manifestly true,”
that is, that can be discerned through the application of basic principles of
common sense and proved or disproved by logical argument (both inductive and
deductive) or empirical evidence. Faith,
on the other hand, applies to that which cannot be proved or disproved by
reason, i.e., those things that are
not manifestly true.
Obviously,
if you apply a tool designed for “A” to “not A,” you’re asking for
trouble. It might work — sort of — for a
while, but eventually something is going to break down that can’t be fixed
without the proper tool.
The
discussion involved the comment that Aristotelian-Thomism is based on both
faith and reason. This statement is
correct if by “faith and reason” we mean that faith illuminates our reason, and
reason helps us understand our faith.
The
statement is incorrect if by “faith
and reason” we mean that we can prove things true by faith or reason, whichever
is expedient. No — faith proves nothing. Faith is defined as “a willingness to
believe.” You accept something as true
even though you lack proof.
Does
that mean that faith contradicts reason?
Of course not. If an article of
faith contradicts reason, or vice versa,
Aquinas’s response would be that you made a mistake somewhere. Either you don’t understand an article of
faith as it was intended to be understood, or your logic or evidence is flawed.
There
is consequently a huge problem that comes in with people who insist that it’s a
case of faith or reason, and then
deny that the reason-based precepts of the natural law (i.e., good is to
be done, evil avoided) by means of which we discern the four natural virtues of
prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice, are discernible and can be known by
human reason alone. They attempt to apply the standards of the three
supernatural virtues, that are (obviously) not of the natural law (they
are supernatural), faith, hope and charity, which do require both faith and reason, to the natural virtues.
If, e.g., faith were discernible by reason alone, you’d have to say that people with no faith are not truly human — which is, in fact, what some people who base the natural law on faith, or even faith and reason, claim. If you don’t belong to their religion, or do not practice or believe exactly as they believe, you are not fully human, or human at all.
The natural law consists of the four temporal or natural virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance and, of course, justice. The capacity to acquire and develop these virtues is part of human nature itself and cannot be changed. Whether you believe that God created the human race, or it sprang into being out of nothing by itself, the capacity to acquire and develop the four temporal virtues is unchanging and unchangeable because it defines the human person as human.
In Thomism, the case is different for the capacity to acquire and develop the three supernatural virtues, faith, hope, and charity. The capacity for the supernatural virtues is not part of human nature, and must be “infused,” or given as a gift. You can be — and are — fully human even if you do not have the capacity to acquire faith, hope, and charity. That capacity is not part of the definition of what it means to be human.
#30#
If, e.g., faith were discernible by reason alone, you’d have to say that people with no faith are not truly human — which is, in fact, what some people who base the natural law on faith, or even faith and reason, claim. If you don’t belong to their religion, or do not practice or believe exactly as they believe, you are not fully human, or human at all.
The natural law consists of the four temporal or natural virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance and, of course, justice. The capacity to acquire and develop these virtues is part of human nature itself and cannot be changed. Whether you believe that God created the human race, or it sprang into being out of nothing by itself, the capacity to acquire and develop the four temporal virtues is unchanging and unchangeable because it defines the human person as human.
In Thomism, the case is different for the capacity to acquire and develop the three supernatural virtues, faith, hope, and charity. The capacity for the supernatural virtues is not part of human nature, and must be “infused,” or given as a gift. You can be — and are — fully human even if you do not have the capacity to acquire faith, hope, and charity. That capacity is not part of the definition of what it means to be human.
