Faith or Reason?

I am painfully aware of a growing division between the secular and the religious. Or, at least, between proponents who have chosen to adopt an extreme view of what they understand to be ‘secular’ or what they understand as being central to the ‘religious’. I think that it’s unfortunate to be witness to such a conflict. Indeed, as a child, I was inspired by people who came from both camps of faith and reason. I admired people ranging from Albert Einstein, Carl Jung and Isaac Newton to religious leaders such as Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Buddha.

However, this is not saying that I was an atypical boy. Indeed, in many ways, I obeyed convention. I tried to follow the precepts of Roman Catholicism and received the sacraments with a certain enthusiasm. I was deeply religious in many ways as a boy and was sincerely interested in living up to what I was taught was good and comply to the commandments, which I was told, would lead me to heaven. But, even as a child, I had many questions. I knew that I was physically different and this meant that I was also perceived differently than others. I was aware of death and the reality of impermanence when I was aware that one of my brothers had died when I was just a baby.

I sought answers in scripture and from reading books on science. I loved to learn about both science and religion. There were times when I rejected religion considerably and when I adopted a more rational and scientific view of the world. Eventually, I would take up a more political or ideological approach. I explored philosophy, psychology and language to understand the world. I have tried to answer the questions that plagued me. I was torn between a rationality that denied the value of faith and a faith that condemned doubt or asking questions.

I felt I had to choose what the truth was. I felt I had to choose between faith and reason. But were my conceptions of faith and reason correct? Was there a point where they could meet?

I don’t wish to oversimplify rationality or religiosity but I can speak about my own experience. For, it’s only our own experiences and understanding of what has been handed us that we can truly claim to have access to.

I find great value in spirituality and religious principles. Yet, I know that scripture was never meant to explain everything about matter.
I find a lot of knowledge and purpose in scientific rationality but I also know that even there we are limited. We cannot truly separate ourselves from the reality we are observing. We are bound, inevitably, to our own preconceptions and world view. Even in the hard sciences, we cannot truly separate ourselves from what we are trying to study. In order to measure matter, we remain dependent on our senses. Even the tools we use ultimately depend on our senses.

The truth of the matter - or at least, my limited current understanding - is that a question that expects us to decide whether we should prefer reason rather than faith or vice versa is a wrong question. For, in reality, our humanity places us in a position where we have to acknowledge our limits.

It is impossible to know all the answers to the questions of life. It’s impossible to claim we know everything about the cosmos. As long as we are part of the cosmos we remain confined to the cosmos as living beings. Our material bodies impose limits. But, yet, we can conceive things we haven’t seen ourselves. We can imagine things that aren’t real. We can be rational or superstitious. We believe we have a certain degree of choice. But, do we really?

For, at the end of all things, I can’t help being struck by a sense of awe and wonder by the very fact that the neurones firing up in my brain right now are permitting me to type this entry. Where are my thoughts when I perform these acts? Do they have a physical basis? Maybe they do and we might find the biological basis one day. But, even then, would we find the thoughts and emotions that were going on in my mind?

I don’t presume to offer secularists or religious people who hold extreme positions on matters of faith and reason. I can only appeal to those who sincerely seek to find truth to remain open to the possibility of dialogue. To be open to the other, however irrational or irreverent one may appear, because none of us can claim to have all the answers. I wish to end this lengthy entry with just a quote and a few paragraphs.

Let me start with a quote. It’s by Albert Einstein, a character I greatly admired as a child and who remains an influence today. Einstein once wrote:

"Science without religion is lame,
Religion without science is blind.”

I admit that it’s perhaps ironic for me to choose this quote I encountered as a child because, apart from the physical impairment that I was ascribed as a child, now I have also acquired a visual impairment. Moreover, it’s perhaps more ironic since this quote has been abused and misappropriated by people holding a radical secular and fundamentalist religious views alike. But, whatever your interpretation, it would be a mistake if we didn’t try to first get to know who Einstein was and what he stood for.

In this sense, Einstein has entered the popular imagination and has often acquired many stereotypes. He has been defined as a Jew who was an atheist, a scientist and, ironically, he has also been put across as a deeply religious person with his famous quote: “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” interpreted out of its proper context or when Einstein was finding it difficult to accept the randomness of the subatomic world where the laws of physics appeared to break down.

But, yet again, Einstein’s ‘God’ is neither the Jewish nor the Christian one. Rather, he was probably upset by the fact that there were things that couldn’t be explained by the science of his time. I can identify with Einstein’s feeling of not knowing. As I got to know more about this man, something else strengthened my admiration for the man. You see, while Einstein did admit that religion could be a form of ‘childhood superstition’, he did not totally reject the human value found in religion. He was defined as being a scientist but little people know he also played the violin with artistic passion..

Unfortunately, many of us see him from a limited perspective. You must read about the man before you can truly begin to understand. But, even then, you will never know who he was - even if there was the possibility of meeting him face-to-face in this lifetime. There are limits to knowledge that are part of our experiences of being human. It’s the same if we consider the debate between the secular and the religious, the sceptic and the faithful.

We may think we can find all the answers in science. On the other hand, we may lay our complete trust in faith. Yet, whatever we choose, I think that we can neither find all the answers in science nor in religion. For, reason and faith are essential for our very being.

I admit that I, myself, have taken up various identities over this short lifetime. I aspired to be a scientist. I am spiritual and can also be rational. I feel, I think and I believe. I hope, I despair and feel sadness and joy. I am disabled and I am impaired. I am a lot of things. I am nothing compared to the immensity of the universe. I know but I don’t really know.

I remain beyond the restrictions of a ‘lame’ rationality and ‘blind’ faith. I can’t keep away from the everyday reality of life but, whatever I think or believe, I still depend on matter to live. I am, at the same time, apart from the universe and, paradoxically, a part of it!

I can’t provide you with any certain answer to the question of why there is pain and suffering in our life. I can’t even assure myself there is such a place as the after-life. I can’t even prove or disprove the existence of a god I cannot see or measure.
I only know that I am human. I only know that there is very little I really know - if that can count as knowledge. I believe that I’m writing this - even if I can’t measure or prove the existence of my thoughts.

We don’t even have to choose between faith and reason. For life cannot be neatly fitted into either extreme views of reality. Indeed, those who think so may be deluded.

For how can I ever truly separate what I believe to be real from what I think is real when these are intrinsically linked together?

For I can say that I ‘have faith’ in the laws of physics. But, then, if I look at the quantum world, all my theories break down. For the very fact that I need light to study light means that as observer I cannot be independent from the observed.

I must be humble enough to accept my limitations. As a human being.

I must seek value in everything that makes our lives as human beings better and richer.

I need to pay more attention to the present.

To the now!

Even if such a realisation is uncomfortable or even painful.

For the future is just a promise and not a guarantee.

It resides beyond faith and cannot be explained through reason alone.

This is our human condition.

The Mystery of Being Human

Two questions:

Who are you?

Who am I?

Some personal reflections…

Are we our body?

Are we our faces?

Are we our voice?

Are we our thoughts?

Are we our feelings or emotions?

Are we our actions?

Are we our personalities?

Are we our name?

Are we our position?

Are we our language?

Are we our faith or belief?

Are we animals?

Are we spiritual beings?

Are we here for a purpose?

Is there an answer?

I find that these are a few of the many questions that I am growing aware of as I practice contemplative Buddhist meditation. There are so many aspects of who we are that we may be forced to define as distinct concepts as if they had an existence of their own.
Yet, a profound meditation on the nature of being forces me to consider that perhaps who I am is neither one or more of the characteristics we often define ourselves with. Our bodies, minds and voices to an extent determine our outer and physical appearance. Our inner being is expressed through a multitude of ways which include those we were born with and others we acquire through social contact. However, we are not our emotions. We are not our voice. We are not our states of mind. We are neither our name or our religion.

Yet, we often choose to belief the illusion that the reality that we express through communication is, in fact, reality itself.

With all the good intentions, some take extreme views to explain the human condition. On one hand, there are those who view reality only in terms of physical objects. There exist nothing beyond what science can measure. On the other hand, there are those who insist that the physical or material reality - although present - isn’t really what makes us humans. I recall some citing a saying to the effect that, it claims, we are spiritual beings trapped in human bodies.

Inasmuch as these accounts contain part of the truth about being, both views seem to hold a limited view of being. For what is a human being? As long as we are alive on this planet, we remain physical beings. At the same time, we are capable to extend our awareness beyond ourselves. We can think. But, contrary to Descartes, we are not who we are because we think. Rather, being is primary to thinking.

Indeed, who we are arises out of aa complex relation between our internal and external realities which give rise to a sense of being. In this respect, we are all of the things that we choose to be but who we are, ultimately, transcends all else. We are beyond concepts.


Once again, I return to being? What does it mean to be me? Who are we really? I believe that we can only find an answer if we stop asking and start listening. For, in silence and with a sincere desire to know, we may find that what we conceive or perceive are but a mystery.

Yes, we may reduce consciousness to a biological process involving interaction between neurones in the brain. We may even deny that there is any reality beyond matter. But, if who we are is an illusion which, in some ways, it is. Then who is asking the question to begin with?

Who is the ‘I’ that is doing the asking?

Who is asking ‘who am I’?

I am!

Now what?