The Eternal Adversaries. Is This Conflict Unsolvable?

Conflict of Reason and Faith

“What if you’re wrong?” a female student asked Prof. Richard Dawkins during a lecture at Liberty University. Expecting a neutral response from the esteemed scientist, she was instead met with his sharp retort. Amidst applause from the crowd, Dawkins responded, “There is no particular reason to single out the Judeo-Christian God, into which you happened to be born by sheer accident. And you ask me what if I am wrong? What if you are wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?” In hindsight, it seems Dawkins could hardly have given a different answer without undermining the narrative of reason’s infallibility that he had long championed. However, the question remains: do science and philosophy offer any methods for determining the existence or non-existence of God? 

Science in Search for God

The focus of research in the natural sciences, as represented by Prof. Dawkins, is the material world. Humans understand this world through their senses. Through observation and experimentation, this “visible” empirical reality can be measured, expressed in mathematical formulas, analyzed, and concluded. If God is a spiritual being that transcends the material world – being both epistemically and ontologically transcendent – then He should not be a subject of study for these sciences.  

However, it is common to encounter atheists who use scientific arguments to refute the existence of God, as well as believers who attempt to validate His existence through empirical science. 

Today, cosmological theories appear to be a major point of contention. Both sides vigorously argue for their respective beliefs, often failing to recognize that the empirical approach may not adequately address religious explanations, which should be evaluated on entirely different grounds.

For example, consider the scientific statement: if the physical constants were slightly different from those that govern this world, life would never have come into being. To a believer, this precise regulation of the universe is proof of the activity of an Absolute, who consciously designed the laws of physics. In contrast, an unbeliever may attribute this fine-tuning to coincidence, arguing that it is more probable than the existence of God. According to the multiverse hypothesis, there could be countless other universes with varying parameters, making our universe just one of many where life happens to be possible. 

It is difficult to reconcile both sides of the conflict in a methodologically sound way when the foundation of knowledge for believers is revealed truths, while for scientists, it is observations and experiments. Although the cosmological argument is tempting as an empirical argument, no one would seriously consider testing the dogmas of faith in a laboratory or interpreting the assumptions of relativity theory using the Bible.

We recommend: Feral Children. Childhood’s Connection to Nature

Conflict of Reason and Faith. How About Philosophy?

Since the natural sciences are unable to determine the issue of God’s existence, perhaps philosophy can address it. While conceptual analysis in philosophy appears to be a more suitable method for examining an absolute being, it remains challenging to identify which attributes could be used to characterize God without resulting in contradictions. 

Let’s assume that God is an infinite being with an indefinite number of attributes of indefinite power. This would suggest that He possesses a closed set of characteristics, known as actual infinity. However, our intuition tells us that any set of infinite objects can always be expanded, suggesting a number greater, even if only by one. So, could God be a finite being? If this were the case, He would need to possess a certain set of empirical characteristics, which would, paradoxically, contradict His transcendence.  

The Risk of Ignorance and the Search for Evidence

The philosophical debate about the existence of God begins at the conceptual level. If God is a contradictory being, then His existence is impossible. If He is coherent, He may exist but is not required to, suggesting He exhibits the characteristics of a contingent being. Therefore, to resolve the issue of His existence, it is essential to prove that He is a necessary being, one that can’t exist. 

For centuries, philosophers have debated the validity of Anselm’s ontological argument. According to this argument, God is “a being than which no greater can be conceived,” and real existence is more perfect than existence solely in the intellect. However, is it possible to declare the existence or non-existence of something based solely on an analysis of concepts? On what grounds can one assume that existence is more perfect than non-existence? A priori arguments often seem like a complex play on words, and reason seeks support in the empirical world by formulating a posteriori arguments. 

Since philosophy also fails to provide definitive evidence for the existence or non-existence of God, perhaps this issue is inherently unsolvable and falls outside the criteria of rationality. Was Kierkegaard right in saying that reason cannot claim to know God? Maybe faith must bear the risk of ignorance, and seeking evidence of God’s existence insults what is transcendent. Or was Schellenberg correct in asserting that people should seek proof to avoid doubt in their faith? 

We recommend: The Fall of the Secret Service. How Prioritizing “Diversity” Undermines Professionalism

Where Two Worlds Meet

The dispute between “reason” and “faith” has accompanied human reflection on the world since the beginning. These two adversaries seem to be in perpetual conflict, yet they miss each other when faith lacks reason and reason lacks faith. As a result of this inexplicable longing, reason begins to masquerade as faith, creating a kind of secularized religion of science that no longer merely provides data about the world but prescribes a doctrine of knowledge. Conversely, faith tries to imitate reason, attributing scientific value to its dogmas, thereby exposing itself to the harsh judgment of falsification. 

Despite the publicly proclaimed, passionate declarations from representatives on both sides of the conflict, it is rare to find an atheist who has never doubted their intellect or a believer who has never questioned their faith. Instead of fostering “cool” discussions, mutual critique often adopts a tone of superiority and serves as a pretext for expressing one’s perspective.

Conflict of Reason and Faith. Maybe There Is a Common Set

Although science and religion are often treated as independent domains that should not be compared, some philosophical perspectives suggest the possibility of their mutual permeation, particularly within the incommensurability thesis. Originally applied to scientific theories, this thesis posits that when a transition occurs from an “older” theory to a “newer” one, the terms and ways of understanding the phenomena under study change so significantly that linguistic incommensurability arises between them. This means that the “pre-revolutionary” theory cannot be translated into the language of the “post-revolutionary” one, and vice versa, even though they address the same area of reality. 

A similar relationship is suggested to exist between science and religion. Despite their different semantic perspectives, they can be compared, implying that there may be some empirical grounds for their intersection. For instance, astrophysics could potentially confirm or deny the existence of God, but it employs definitions that are not directly translatable into theological language. This raises a fundamental question: does religion require such intellectual validation of its doctrines? 

To paraphrase Miguel de Unamuno’s thought, a person who is absolutely convinced of either the existence or non-existence of God might be considered less than fully human, as such certainty would imply a lack of reason – the essence of which is to doubt. Questions like “What if He is?” and “What if He is not?” underpin the human inner life and highlight its tragic nature, as we are unable to provide a definitive answer. Although the future remains uncertain, the uncertainty inherent in both reason and faith serves as a testament to their credibility. 

Translation: Marcin Brański

Read the text in Polish: Odwieczni adwersarze. Ten konflikt jest nie do rozstrzygnięcia?