Introduction

This paper examines the relationship between faith and reason. It takes as its starting point Dr. Rich Holland’s three-fold categorization of the relationships:[1]

  1. Faith and reason in conflict
  2. Faith and reason independent of each other
  3. Faith and reason working together

The paper describes and analyzes each of these general relationships. It concludes that faith and reason should work together for the glory of God. Christians should use reason to serve faith by illuminating the meaning of Scripture, ensuring the coherence of Christian teaching, defending the faith, and preparing unbelievers to hear the Gospel.

Definitions

Reason

J.P. Moreland defines reason as “all our faculties relevant to gaining knowledge and justifying our beliefs about different things.”[2] This is a broad definition, but “knowledge” is at its core. J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig write that the standard definition of “knowledge” is “justified true belief.”[3] Craig Boyd offers three definitions of reason.[4] In his first definition, reason is how people use science and logic to understand the world. In the second definition, reason is “the sinful attempt of human creatures to demand that reality conforms to their prior expectations.”[5] His third definition, which he prefers, is that reason is how one comes “to understand, process and decide how to live one’s life given the multiform ways in which reality can be apprehended.”[6]

As will be discussed below under “Faith and Reason in Conflict,” many Christians believe that “reason” is opposed to faith or, in Martin Luther’s famous words, “reason is the devil’s whore.” It should be noted that the Bible praises proper use of the mind. For example, Paul writes that we should be transformed “by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2 NIV). Jesus tells us we should love God “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt 22:27). The mind is expressly included.  Peter told his readers to be prepared “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). Peter here is telling Christians to use reason to explain why they believe. Since reason is needed to gain knowledge, that is, to discern truth, it should be a tool that Christians use to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). The Bible clearly teaches that faith and reason should work together, but Christians must not place reason above faith.

Faith

J.P. Moreland defines faith as “trust in what we have reason to believe is true.”[7] The author of Hebrews writes, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Heb:11:1). Craig Boyd defines faith as “a commitment to belief based upon the testimony of God.”[8] He divides faith into three components: faith as content, faith as act, faith as habit.[9] The first of these components is relevant for this paper. Carl Raschke, on the other hand, emphasizes that faith is a personal relationship with God.[10] Similarly, Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien argue that the words grace and faith – charis and pistis in Greek – were used to describe the patron-client relationship. The patron or benefactor offered unearned gifts to the client – grace – and the client or servant responded with faithfulness and loyalty – faith.[11] Faith involves believing the truth of propositions, but it is also a relationship with the living God.

What do Christians believe? While there is a wide variety of beliefs among Christians, the core of the faith is described in the Nicene Creed, adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This creed proclaims that God is triune (One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); that the Son, eternally begotten of the Father, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Virgin Mary); He did this for us and our salvation (atonement); He was crucified, but rose again on the third day, as foretold by the Scriptures; He ascended to heaven, but will come again to judge the living and the dead; the holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets, gives life; there is one apostolic Church, one baptism, and Christians await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come (eternal life).

            Faith and Reason: Three Main Relationships

Faith and reason in conflict

Many people believe that faith and reason are in conflict and cannot be reconciled. If this is true, people must choose between faith and reason. Atheists believe that there is no evidence for the existence of any god, and so religious faith is irrational. In the 19th Century, William K. Clifford argued that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”[12] He then argues that we are not justified in believing “the truth of any statement which is contrary to, or outside of, the uniformity of nature.”[13]  Since Christianity is based on the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which violates the uniformity of nature, Clifford implied that one is not justified in believing it. Similarly, critics of Christianity have argued that the fundamental doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity are logically contradictory.[14]

Some self-professed Christians accept that there is conflict between faith and science or reason, and so faith must be altered to conform to reason. For example, James Robinson as well as the Jesus Seminar have denied the historicity of most of what the Gospel writers wrote about Jesus, because the events and sayings attributed to Him did not meet their very rigid criteria. Moreover, the many miracles attributed to Him were declared inauthentic, since miracles cannot occur.[15] 

Many more orthodox Christians, adherents of fideism, believe there is conflict between faith and reason, and so they rely on faith and ignore reason. Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman define “fideism” as “an approach to apologetics that argues that the truths of faith cannot and should not be justified rationally. Or, to look at it another way, fideists contend that the truths of Christianity are properly apprehended by faith alone.”[16] Fideists argue that, because of the fall, the human capacity to use reason is woefully inadequate to discover the truth about God. They argue that “some truths of Christianity are beyond our capacity to understand or express in a logically definitive fashion.”[17]

This perspective has a long pedigree, going back to Tertullian (AD 160-220) and running through Martin Luther (16th century), Blaise Pascal (17th century), Søren Kierkegaard (19th century), and Karl Barth (20th century).[18] Reformed apologists, such as Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga have also been called fideists, but Boa and Bowman disagree because Reformed apologists make truth claims that are rationally consistent within a Christian system of thought.[19] The anti-intellectualism that took over evangelical churches in the U.S. during the 19th century, which Moreland decries, is consistent with fideism.[20]

Fideists can point to numerous Scripture passages. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise (1 Cor 1:19).  Paul continues, “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20). God saves those who believe “through the foolishness of what was preached” (1 Cor 1:21). Similarly, Paul warns the church to make sure they are not captured through “hollow and deceptive philosophy” that depends on “human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Col 2:8). The list could be continued.

Carl Raschke, writing from a Christian postmodernist perspective, makes similar arguments, although he claims not to be a fideist “in the stereotypical sense.”[21] He argues that faith is “in the final analysis not rational but relational. What does this contention imply philosophically? There is no such thing as a ‘relational proposition,’ unless one of course is talking about a marriage proposal.” This indicates that reason is not adequate to explain faith. Further, faith as a relationship with God “opens our understanding to things we cannot necessarily anticipate or understand from the propositional perspective.”[22] This does not mean that philosophy is useless, however. If it accepts its subordinate role, it “can serve its own ‘apostolic’ role in dealing with the ‘Gentiles,’ as Paul conceived it.”[23] This opens the door for the use of reason in evangelism and apologetics, but not in formulating Christian doctrine. Moreover, even Martin Luther, who called reason “the devil’s whore,” saw reason as a useful “tool or source of understanding when grounded in Christ and the gospel,” according to Allan G. Padgett.[24] Ultimately, then, Martin Luther, Carl Raschke, and others who focus on conflict between reason and faith probably accept the “faith and reason working together” perspective as long as reason is subordinate to faith.

Faith and reason independent of each other

In this view, reason and science are useful for understanding the world of the senses, and faith and theology are in separate spheres. They cannot conflict with each other, since they refer to entirely different things. Writing from a secular perspective, American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that “science and religion were ‘non-overlapping magisteria’: distinct fields of human activity that need not – should not – encroach on each other’s territory.”[25] According to this view, the natural world is the province of science. Religion, on the other hand, focuses on morals and spiritual meaning. It was an attempt to disarm the conflict between faith and science over the theory of evolution. The “New Atheists,” such as Richard Dawkins, have clearly rejected Gould’s approach.

The views regarding “non-overlapping magisteria” among Christians are mixed. Some fideists accept the value of reason and science in understanding the natural world but reject their use in the realm of theology. Carl Raschke’s views could be characterized in this way. J.P. Moreland decries the withdrawal of many Christians from the life of the intellect. This began in the 19th century in response to Enlightenment philosophers, such as Hume and Kant, and “German higher criticism” of the Bible.[26] As a result, “fewer and fewer people regarded the Bible as a body of divinely revealed, true propositions about various topics that requires a devoted intellect to grasp and study systematically. Instead, the Bible increasingly was sought solely as a practical guide for ethical guidance and spiritual growth.”[27] Similarly, he argues, “There has emerged a secular/sacred separation in our understanding of the Christian life with the result that Christian teaching and practice are privatized and placed in a separate compartment from the public or so-called secular activities of life.”[28] This is a very good description of the “non-overlapping magisterial” perspective, which is very common in American churches today. The Pew Research Center reported that 63% of U.S. Christians said in a survey from 2015-2016 that science and religion do not conflict.[29] This does not mean, however, that all of them believe that faith and science are separate realms. Some of them likely believe that science confirms the truths of Christianity.

A useful test case for the non-overlapping magisteria approach is acceptance of neo-Darwinism, which conflicts with a literalistic understanding of Genesis 1-11. A book edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry presents four views common among evangelical Christians regarding evolution. Young Earth Creationists reject neo-Darwinism and argue for a literalistic understanding of Genesis 1-11. Progressive creationists accept what science says about an old earth and “evolution” of living things over time but reject common descent from a single ancestor and so reject a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism.[30] Instead, they argue, God intervened to create various kinds of flora and fauna at appropriate times in earth’s history.

Evolutionary Creationists, as exemplified by BioLogos, accept neo-Darwinism as how God created the variety of living things that we find in the world. Deborah Haarsma, for example, argues that God wrote two books: the book of Scripture, which tells of theological and moral matters, and the book of nature, which science reads to tell us about the natural world.[31] There can be no conflict between the two, since God is the author of both. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, avoids discussing faith at all. This viewpoint uses scientific evidence, such as the information content of DNA, to argue against neo-Darwinism and for a designer. Stephen Meyer emphasizes that it is “not based upon religious belief.”[32] It does, however, “affirm a key tenant of a biblical worldview – namely, that life and the universe are the products of a designing intelligence.”[33]

Young Earth Creationists clearly reject the concept of “non-overlapping magisteria.” They believe there is a conflict between faith and the modern scientific consensus, and they choose faith, although they use the tools of science to argue against the scientific consensus, Progressive Creationists acknowledge no conflict between Genesis 1 and the results of science and so might be in the “non-overlapping magisterial” category. On the other hand, they do reject a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism, common descent, and so one can argue that they use science and reason to support their theological beliefs. In that case, they would fall under the category of “faith and reason working together.” Evolutionary Creationists best exemplify the “non-overlapping magisteria” perspective. They fully accept what mainstream science says about evolution. If there is a connection between faith and reason, they use science (reason) to help them interpret Scripture. The fourth group, Intelligent Design, stays within the realm of reason, but its adherents use it to argue for the truth of theism, and so it might best be described as belonging to the “faith and reason working together” category.

Faith and reason working together

Catholic apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli write, “Faith and reason can never contradict each other.”[34] This statement sums up this third category. Of the three categories discussed, this is probably the one most Christian apologists prefer. In this view, faith and reason work together to discover truth.

One approach in this category is exemplified by Alan G. Padgett’s “Faith Seeking Understanding.” Padgett argues that “right reason, grounded in Scripture and Christian faith, plays an essential role in critical reflection upon Christian faith and life for individuals and communities of faith.”[35] Moreover, both faith and reason are “essential to full discipleship and mature Christian wisdom.”[36] Reason must, however, have its “foundation in Christian, biblical faith, which then leads to a discipleship of the mind, seeking greater wisdom and understanding of God, ourselves and creation.”[37] Padgett contrasts this with “classical Thomism or natural theology,” which he says moves “from human understanding of the world to faith in God.”[38] Padgett cites numerous Scripture passages to support his view. For example, Proverbs 1:7 states “fools despise wisdom and instruction,” which suggests an appreciation of wisdom. Paul writes that he speaks “a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age” (1 Cor 2:6). This passage sums up Padgett’s position well: Christians should pursue and speak wisdom, but not subordinate it to the preferences of secular society.”

In “The Synthesis of Reason and Faith,” Craig A. Boyd argues for the perspective of Thomas Aquinas, often called the Thomistic synthesis. Boyd writes, “God has endowed human beings with rational capacities, and these capacities can, and do, lead us to truth. However, these rational capacities do not, and cannot, by themselves offer us salvation.”[39] In the “synthesis” view, human nature retains some continuity with its original state before the Fall, “because it reflects the goodness of God. It has been damaged by sin, but it retains its created integrity.”[40] Human nature can be healed by divine grace. Hence, for Christians, reason “discovers basic moral truths and facilitates the understanding of Christian faith.”[41]  Reason can, of course, also be misused to “come up with reasons for rejecting God as well as rationalizations for our immoral behavior.”[42] Boyd, too, quotes scripture to support his perspective. He focuses heavily on John 1, which introduces Jesus as the “logos,” the divine Word. This “true light” gives “light to everyone” (John 1:9). “Word” and “light” can also refer to wisdom, which the early church recognized. For example, the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (now Istanbul) is the Church of Holy Wisdom.

Analysis

While there are enormous differences between atheists and orthodox Christians, the differences in perspectives on faith and reason between orthodox Christians are relatively minor. Those who represent the “faith and reason in conflict” perspective argue that, while reason in fallen humans is adequate to understand the natural world, it is woefully inadequate if unaided to understand the things of God. But Allan Padgett, who represents the “faith and reason working together” perspective, would heartily agree. We understand the things of God through revelation, not reason. Even the Christians who view reason most favorably, such as Craig Boyd, would agree. Unaided human reason could never discover the Trinity or atonement, for example. Similarly, Carl Raschke, who represents the most skeptical view of reason in fallen humanity, agrees that reason can be useful in apologetics and evangelism if it accepts its subordinate status to faith.

The perspectives are also blurred on specific issues, such as neo-Darwinian evolution. Young Earth Creationists completely reject an old earth and neo-Darwinism, and so represent the “faith and reason in conflict” perspective. Yet even they try to muster evidence from nature to argue their position. Progressive Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, and Intelligent Design advocates, such as Stephen C. Meyer, attempt to reconcile faith and reason without sacrificing faith. The Evolutionary Creation perspective of BioLogos could be characterized as “Faith and reason independent of each other,” as they accept the scientific consensus on evolution as well as God’s revelation in Scripture. Even they, however, do not subject Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, atonement, and resurrection, to the dictates of reason.

A more pragmatic way to understand the relationship of reason and faith is to ask how Christians can use reason to support faith. Here the advantages of a faith-directed use of reason are readily apparent. Christians can use reason to examine doctrinal statements for coherence. Are they self-refuting, and hence false, or are they merely paradoxical, such as the doctrine of the Trinity? Reason can also be used to illuminate the meaning of Scripture. While this seems at first to place faith under reason, which orthodox Christians do not advocate, that is not the case. For example, in Isaiah 55:12, it says “the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.” Reason makes it clear that mountains and hills do not literally sing, and trees have no hands with which to clap. The author of Isaiah 55:12 certainly knew this, and so one can conclude, through reason, that he meant it metaphorically.

Reason can also be used in apologetics and evangelism. Faith comes from the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God. But to hear the word of God, people must first be willing to listen. They will not listen to God’s Word without first being convinced it is worth hearing. If they believe that Christian faith is irrational, as many people do, they will not give the Word a fair hearing, and so will not come to faith. Apologetics, which uses reason to argue for the reasonableness of Christian faith, can open people’s ears so they listen to the Word, permitting the Holy Spirit to work. Reason is also useful in a defensive role to reinforce Christians confronted with arguments against the faith.

Conclusion

The paper examined the relationship between faith and reason from three different perspectives:

  1. Faith and reason in conflict
  2. Faith and reason independent of each other
  3. Faith and reason working together

The paper discussed various perspectives among Christians and non-Christians. The differences between Christians and non-Christians cannot be reconciled, but the differences between Christians can. For Christians, faith should never be subordinate to reason, but reason can be a useful tool to help Christians correctly understand the Christian faith and argue for its veracity. For Christians, faith and reason can work together for the glory of God. Christians should use reason to serve faith by illuminating the meaning of Scripture, ensuring the coherence of Christian teaching, defending the faith, and preparing unbelievers to hear the Gospel.

Bibliography

Boa, Kenneth, and Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2005.

Boyd, Craig A, Alan G Padgett, Carl A Raschke. Faith and Reason: Three Views. Edited by Steve Wilkens. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014.

Clifford, William K. “The Ethics of Belief” in Lectures and Essays by the Late William Kingdom Clifford. 2nd ed. London, UK: Macmillan and Co. 1886, pp. 339-363.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008

Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B Haarsma, and Stephen C Meyer. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017.

Holland, Rich. “Faith & Reason,” https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/643171/pages/watch-faith-and-reason?module_item_id=69959347, course video, accessed July 27, 2024.

Kreeft, Peter, Ronald K. (Ronald Keith) Tacelli, and Peter Kreeft. Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Moreland, J. P.  Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012.

Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017.

Pew Research Center, “On the Intersection of Science and Religion,” https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/, accessed August 11, 2023, 5:30 p.m. CEST.

Richards, E. Randolph and Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012.

Senor, Thomas D. “The Incarnation and the Trinity” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 238-260

Spencer, Nick. Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science and Religion. London, England: Oneworld Publications, 2023.

[1] Rich Holland, “Faith & Reason,” https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/643171/pages/watch-faith-and-reason?module_item_id=69959347, course video, accessed July 27, 2024.

[2] J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), 44.

[3] J. P. Moreland und William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 63.

[4] Craig A. Boyd, “Chapter 3: The Synthesis of Reason and Faith”, in Faith and Reason: Three Views, ed. Steve Wilkens, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 137.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 19.

[8] Boyd in “Faith and Reason” 150.

[9] Ibid., 138.

[10] Carl A. Raschke in Boyd, Craig A, Alan G Padgett, Carl A Raschke. Faith and Reason: Three Views. Edited by Steve Wilkens. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014), 64.

[11] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012), 71-72.

[12] Clifford, William K. “The Ethics of Belief” in Lectures and Essays by the Late William Kingdom Clifford, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan and Co; 1886), 346.

[13] Ibid., 363.

[14] Thomas D. Senor, “The Incarnation and the Trinity” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 238.

[15] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 292-294.

[16] Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, (Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2005), 390.

[17] Ibid., 390.

[18] Ibid., 392-414.

[19] Ibid., 391.

[20] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 15ff.

[21] Carl A. Raschke in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 160.

[22] Ibid., 66.

[23] Ibid., 67.

[24] Allen G. Padgett in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 160.

[25] Spencer, Nick. Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science and Religion, (London, England: Oneworld Publications, 2023), 17.

[26] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 17.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., 21.

[29] Pew Research Center, “On the Intersection of Science and Religion,” https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/, accessed August 11, 2023, 5:30 p.m. CEST.

[30] Hugh Ross in Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B Haarsma, and Stephen C Meyer. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 72.

[31] Deborah B. Haarsma in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, 126.

[32] Stephen C. Meyer in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, 207.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Peter Kreeft, Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

[35] Allen G. Padgett in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 87.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 86.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Craig A. Boyd in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 133.

[40] Ibid., 135.

[41] Ibid., 147.

[42] Ibid., 159.