Can one be rational and have faith at the same time, on the same subject? Some assert that these two concepts are mutally exclusive, especially when the discussion enters the spiritual realm. Interestingly, though, everyone blends the two on a daily basis.

 

Let's first examine some definitions of the words Rational and Faith:

 

Rational

• Having its source in or being guided by the intellect (as distinguished from experience or emotion)
• Consistent with or based on or using reason
• Intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind

Faith

• Belief that is not based on proof
• Complete confidence in a person or plan
• Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person

Those that dismiss faith say they do so because reality can be interpreted and lived strictly through facts and reason. When addressing the unknown, it is simply an extrapolation of known facts. A great question for this group is to ask if the love they have for family members is purely a biologic function with no deeper meaning.

 

Those that ride purely on faith are often willing to cast contradictory facts to their belief off to the side without question. When addressing the unknown, it is simply a matter of showing enough faith. A great question for this gorup is to ask whether they had to show constant faith that the road would randomly collapse under their car when last driving it.

 

Each and every one of us exhibits the blend of these two domains mutliple times every day. We take known facts and experience, and combine it with our hopes, dreams, passions, and relationships. Can we measure relationships purely on extrapolation of the past? Do we pass blindly through red traffic lights hoping we have enough faith to get us through? Of course not.

 

It is the power of the two together - Rational Faith - that gives us the ability to live a life with foundation and predictability, but to reach beyond and live a life full of wonder, hope, and emotion.

Law of Non-Contradiction

This law is the foundation for all logical thinking, and is known as the law of contradiction or the law of non-contradiction. No matter what you call it, this law is absolutely inviolable. The law may be defined as follows: A statement cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same respect. For example: It cannot be both 100 Degrees and 32 Degrees at the same time and in the place. It could have been hot yesterday, but not today. Or, it could be hot in Denver but not in Boise.

 

Objective and Subjective Truth

The topic of objective and subjective is one of the most straightforward, yet convoluted, topics around. While most people will claim that objective truth exists from a materialistic standpoint (e.g. the earth exists), many will also claim that spiritual truth is purely relative. Why is this? Very simply, it's a nice convenience. If I can define spirituality to be what I want, I remove any consequences and other undesired outcomes from my mind. The problem? If I tried to do the same in the material world and decided that gravity didn't fit my belief systems, I would still careen to the bottom of a cliff if I drove off of it to attempt to fly. To understand more on the reasoning path around truth, see the tab Adventures in Logic.

 

Elevated Truth Claims

The most efficient method to sort truth claims is to place the truth claims of each religion, faith or belief into a hierarchical order. Of course, truth is pervasive throughout all life systems, and is definitely greater than a lie (for without truth, you can’t even have a lie). So, I would deal only with religions that claimed to have the truth. The following claims are sorted in order of the claim's breadth:

• I have heard the truth and I can share it with you.
• I have seen the truth and I can share it with you.
• I have felt the truth and I can share it with you.
• I am the truth and I can share it with you.

Let's say you wish to learn about an individual and had limited time. Who would you rather speak to, a person who read a book about the person, the person who wrote the book, or the actual person? The truth claims of religions can be sorted in the same manner - go to the one with the highest claim. that way, if the claim is proven false, all levels below it fail.

 

Jesus Christ made the claim that He was the truth, and outrageous and exclusive claim, so, logically, my investigation should begin with Christianity.

Let's now apply rational and reason to the domain of truth. These simple and straightforward assertions are exercises in logic that clearly drive out the nature of truth.

 

There is no such thing as truth. Is that true?

A simple statement, we begin here to establish the foundation of reason.  After all, what is reason and logic if no truth exists? Many have read this statement and come to strange conclusions. Some readily proclaim, “Yes, there is no truth!”  Those making this claim often miss the obvious – for their answer to be correct, their response must be true, invalidating itself altogether.  Asking the person directly if their response is true, they gladly affirm. Others take the route of a relativist, responding with statements like “Well, it’s different for everyone,” or “for some people yes, and for other people no.”  As with the prior group, the truth denouncers, this group also misses the obvious about the truth claim of their own statement. Common sense, if someone is willing to employ it, leads us quickly to the intuitive answer – no, the statement is false. Truth exists. 

 

All truth is relative. Is that absolutely true?

A natural extension of the initial question, this statement moves beyond the basic existence of truth into the realm of absolutes.  Does a truth exist independent of belief, experience, or even people altogether?  As previously mentioned, some may believe that truth exists, but it is relative for each of us. The answer becomes obvious by asking a simple question: "Is the claim that all truth is relative absolutely true?"

 

Truth is unknowable. How do you know?

Some truths, of course.  Do we know what it's like to fly like an eagle?  Certainly not.  But we can be assured that at least some truth is knowable by simply asking questions such as "How do you know?" or "Do you know this statement is true?"  All of us certainly hope that truths around the meaning of a red light and braking are knowable by others as we pass through an intersection with our family. Also, if truth is unknowable, then what purpose does discovery and exploration fill? Is scientific discovery worthless?  Each year, medical advancements are revealed and new stars discovered in the heavens.  If truth is unknowable, why does discovery and research net so much value?

 

Truth cannot be expressed in words. Except for this sentence?

Some argue that words cannot provide full, if any, insight into truth, and truth is thus impossible to comprehend.  The interesting facet of this criticism is the use of words to assert the claim.  If words hold no meaning, speech and writing becomes a pointless stream of useless babble.

 

Everything is meaningless. Including this statement?

A extended variant of the previous claim, the statement can't be true and valid.

 

A Logical Conclusion

Does truth exist?  Yes, without question (pun intended).  Certainly, we bring truth as a result of being alive, and perceive and interpret truth through our relative experiences.  We can be assured, however, and even comforted, knowing that truth isn't there to fight us, but defines the glorious world we live in, granting us the ability to know how to live within it to the fullest.