In Defense of Faith: Why Reason and Faith Are Not Incompatible

A Logical Rebuttal of a Recent Argument

By Matthew Mitchell, published Dec 30, 2007
Published Content: 37  Total Views: 35,441  Favorited By: 5 CPs
Contact  Subscribe   Add to Favorites
Rating: 4.8 of 5
 
Font
 
Font
In light of an argument against faith recently posted on Associated Content, I felt compelled to prepare a logical and reasonable rebuttal. The article to which I refer is entitled "Are Believers in God Simply Too Afraid to Embrace Reason?" and was written by Jack Oceano. Concerning what he calls the "utterly ridiculous notion of faith," the author has this to say:

Were "faith" to be exercised in operating rooms, none of us would survive the simplest of procedures. Were "faith" to be exercised in courtrooms, the innocent would be behind bars and the guilty would roam free. So why rely on "faith" when seeking out the meaning of life and what comes next?

I do not agree with Jack on these points, but is it possible that this disagreement can be solved simply by putting forth a clear definition of the word "faith"? Let us see. Consulting Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th edition), one finds on page 510 this definition of faith: "complete trust, confidence, or reliance." But surely this is not the meaning of faith that Mr. Oceano has in mind, for if it is, his statements can be shown to be invalid.

Consider the first assertion: "Were 'faith' to be exercised in operating rooms, none of us would survive the simplest of procedures." I submit to the reader that without faith, without a complete trust, confidence and reliance on the part of the surgeon, none of us would survive surgery. Here are but a few assumptions the operating doctor must accept, in order to even make the first incision, with complete trust, confidence and reliance (in other words, faith):

 
Share
 
Save For Later
 
Publish Yours
 
Print
More by Matthew Mitchell
View all »

We have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Credit: Richard Mathews

Copyright: Richard Mathews

You may also like...
Other topics: 
Takeaways
  • Only one contradicting observation is required to disprove a scientific theory.
  • Surgeons cannot operate without faith in their instruments and assistants.
  • The justice system could not function if some things were not accepted on faith.
Did You Know?
Consulting Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th edition), one finds on page 510 this definition of faith: "complete trust, confidence, or reliance."
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
 
Farmer is correct. The point of this article was to defend the notion of faith "in and of itself." Faith in surgical instruments is not in the same ballpark as faith in God; however, Mr. Oceano argued against faith in God on the grounds that faith itself (in ANY area, he says) is an invalid option. Therefore, to disprove his argument I simply had to argue for simple faith "in and of itself." If he persists in his anti-God arguments, he must look elsewhere for his support.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/13/2008 at 10:01:37 AM

 
(continued) the question of God is much deeper and serious.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/12/2008 at 7:01:42 AM

 
Tyler, your point is well taken. The question of God is a much more challenging and confusing question, not to mention important. But I believe the overall point of this argument was to try to say that the idea of having faith in something is not itself unreasonable. We all have faith in various things albeit in different degrees (such as crossing the street versus God). And thus to say that since we cannot know for certain if there is a God that all faith or belief in a God is unreasonable, is itself an unreasonable argument. That argument is based on the fact that we can't know there is a God with certainty yet there are very few things for which are able to know with certainty and I believe that is all this article was trying to point out. But I would agree with you in the sense that the standard of faith required to believe that your surgeon is a good doctor is much lower than the faith required to belive in God. But that is how it should be considering, like you suggested,

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/12/2008 at 7:01:20 AM

 
Dinesh is a very good writer and a highly capable scholar and I your response is valid Farmer. However, I think faith in God and the questions that are inhabited in that debate are a little more serious then a surgical procedure. This argument seems to belittle the deeper question by saying that crossing the street and believing in God are both faith based in a sense.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/11/2008 at 9:01:40 PM

 
Likewise, there is indeed a good deal of evidence that points to a God (although there are many people who ignore such evidence.) I recommend going to the websites http://www.reasonablefaith.org or http://www.leestrobel.com/ or checking out the books "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, "God: The Evidence" by Patrick Glynn, or "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza for more information about that. Also, a man named Anthony Flew who used to be called "the world's most famous atheist" and was a leader in the atheist movement years ago who says that now he does in fact believe there must be a God. He says he changed his mind based solely on scientific evidence and not on any kind of religious experience. He wrote a book about it called "There is A God" and I haven't read it yet, but in it he details the evidence that changed his mind.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/11/2008 at 12:01:36 PM

 
Tyler, they both are two things that you cannot know for certain but can have a faith in them based on reason. You have no way of knowing for certain that your surgeon knows what he is doing. Did you train him? Did you hand him his diploma from medical school? No, but you can reasonably infer that he is a good doctor based on the testimony of his other patients or nurses and doctors who have worked with him before. But that still isn't PROOF that he is reliable. They could be lying or mistaken and his diploma could be a fake. These kinds of scams have happened before in the past so it is not out of the question that they couldn't happen again. There is no concrete way of knowing for certain, but we all base our judgements on incomplete information. And when we can't know something for certain but believe it to be true anyway based on what evidence we have, that's called faith.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/11/2008 at 12:01:21 PM

 
How does faith in the quality of a medical procedure mesh with the possibility of there being a God or not?

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/10/2008 at 9:01:58 PM

 
So Mr. Oceano decides to fight logical reasoning with his silence and arrogance. How typical. This is only more evidence against his own argument.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/07/2008 at 1:01:46 PM

 
Thank you for this article Matthew. I did a reply to Jack Oceano's article and if you would like to pop over and leave a comment in my article with a link to yours their it would be more than welcome! This is the link for you http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/523045/god_believer_agnostic_or_atheist.html

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 3:01:33 PM

 
Faith in surgical instruments? This is so poorly done, I'll be happy to let it speak for itself.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 1:01:09 PM

 
That was a very nice article! I'm glad you pointed out Mr. Oceano's faulty logic. I saw that article he wrote and didn't even bother to look at it because I knew it would be just him spewing rhetoric without any facts or even rational arguemnets to back it up. If Mr. Oceano really believes he is right, it would be nice if he offered up some evidence to support it once and a while. No, instead he seems to prefer to tout his opinion and claim it is unchallengeable doctrine.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/02/2008 at 8:01:20 AM

Type in Your Comments Below
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
Most Commented On
 
Apply Now »