Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies

LETTER  TO THE EDITOR
Irrational Reason vs. Rational Faith
Oskar Gruenwald, Ph.D.

    Condensed in: Chronicle of Higher Education (16 February 2007): B17. Cf. Full Text: Dear Editor: It is tempting to dismiss oversimplifications regarding either science or religion, except for the fact that they misrepresent both–-as in Lawrence M. Krauss' op ed, "Reason, Unfettered by Faith" (Chronicle Review, 12 January 2007: B20). While Harvard University may have missed an important momentum in terms of curricular innovation, i.e., rediscovering the interconnections between reason and faith, Krauss' dismissal of such a project rests on questionable assumptions. Absent from Krauss' account is the historical context where such eminent scientists as Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Francis Bacon were devout believers. Equally missing is the present context of the science-religion dialogue which has bourgeoned especially during the past two decades, and whose participants include prominent scientists, philosophers, and theologians, even a Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, numerous conferences, institutes, and publications, including the refereed Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Interfaith Dialogue (www.JIS3.org), which takes both scholarship and faith seriously.

    What is anomalous in Krauss' assessment re the imputed incompatibility of reason and faith is his curious melding of a 19th-century, positivist, reductionist conception of science with a 20th-century disdain for religious faith. Yet, actual 21st-century science, a splendid yet fallible intellectual adventure fraught with promises and pitfalls–-a continuing saga of man's quest to decipher the intricate workings of the cosmos--is far from such a narrow, deterministic, positivist, reductionist construction. Rather, contemporary science poses increasingly metaphysical and meta-scientific questions which reach well beyond science's capacity to answer. As Stephen W. Hawking–-who is often compared to Albert Einstein–-intimates regarding the puzzle of the ultimate meaning of the cosmos:

"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?"

    However, the basic flaw in Krauss' argument is the assumption that reason and science are always rational, whereas faith and religion are always irrational. This is simply not so. Recall that in the 20th century it was atheistic totalitarian dictatorships–-Nazism and communism–-which accounted for the Holocaust and genocides whose millions of victims vastly outnumber the carnage of all the previous centuries. Both Nazism and communism invoked "reason" and "Science," in their corrupted forms of Aryan racial supremacy, social Darwinism, eugenics, Lysenkoism, historical and dialectical materialism, and moral-ethical relativism, unfettered by rational faith, in denying basic human rights and freedoms, and indeed incarcerating in concentration camps and Gulags and exterminating millions belonging to the "wrong" race or class and "wrong" social, political, philosophical, and religious persuasions.

    In brief, "reason," uninformed by morality and faith, can be just as irrational as religious faith unaided by reason. Moreover, science and technology badly need ethics, lest they be used to imperil rather than enrich human life and dignity on a fragile planet. Einstein himself admitted that: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." More pointedly, John Paul II suggested that: "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." The conclusion follows that unless scientists, philosophers, and theologians learn once again to talk to each other, the results are likely to be more misunderstanding, conflict, and a Hobbesian world where life is "nasty, brutish, and short."

    Despite Krauss' objection, religious and theological doctrines can evolve, humans can grow intellectually and spiritually, and, most important, men and women are gifted with the divine capacities of free will, a moral sense (the Tao), and conscience, which bears the Creator's imprint–-the teleological imperative to fulfill their potential as caring and loving beings created in the image of God (Genesis 1: 26-27). Clearly, a new vision for higher education is called for in the Third Millennium, as reflected in my essay on: "The Third Culture: An Integral Vision of the Human Condition," Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies XII (2005).

Home  Call for Papers  Contents  Abstracts  Review Books  Art Gallery  Poetry  Subscribe  Sample Article  About IIR  About ICSA  Site Map.