‘Blind Faith’: What is it, Why Does it Matter and How Ought We Approach it?
Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Enlightenment has been the reconfiguration of the relationship between faith and reason in public discourse. The term ‘blind faith’, referring to the acceptance of a belief without using reason, logic or proof, seemed particularly pertinent in light of this development, and it is unsurprising that its relevance has not faded in a world where people are flooded with information but unsure as to what constitutes truth. This article will assess the relevance of ‘blind faith’ today, considers how we ought to address it, and explores how reason and faith can co-exist.
Voltaire, a leading figure in the Enlightenment, looked on ‘blind faith’ with disdain. Whilst a deist, and so not an atheist, Voltaire’s rationalist outlook led him to condemn the sycophantic obedience to authority he observed amongst the followers of organised religions. He instead advocated for people to question their beliefs systematically, seeing scepticism as a tool for advancing human knowledge. In doing so, the iconoclastic Frenchman felt that we could combat the problems of fanaticism, superstition, tyranny and intellectual laziness which he saw permeate 18th century society. In the modern day, many of these problems persist: from the recent rise of Christian nationalism in the US and the persistent issue of Islamic extremism to pseudoscience and the widespread use of unreliable AI engines, ‘blind faith’ remains as relevant as ever. As we have seen in recent years, it can be incredibly pernicious, and it seems that, as Voltaire suggested, we must encourage people to use their reason to remedy its negative impacts. Nonetheless, Voltaire’s solution, in my view, cannot account for all forms of faith, and this becomes apparent when looking at Søren Kierkegaard’s conception of religious faith.
The 19th century Danish philosopher, known as ‘the father of existentialism,’ is perhaps the most celebrated advocate of religious faith. Nevertheless, his views on adherence to organised religion aligned with those of Voltaire, once even stating that ‘if you want to be loathsome to God, just run with the herd. The major difference between their two viewpoints lay in this; Kierkegaard, unlike Voltaire, saw his faith in God as going beyond human reason; when reason hits its limit, faith allows us to continue to act where certainty is impossible. Applying reason to faith was therefore, in his view, insufficient. In lieu of this, Kierkegaard encouraged inward reflection to avoid ‘blind faith,’ and to instead achieve ‘authentic faith.’ This view was reflected in the reclusive Dane’s absolute and personal relationship with God, and also in his writings. In his 1843 work, ‘Fear and Trembling,’ Kierkegaard presents the biblical character of Abraham as a ‘knight of faith,’ someone who cannot justify his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac through reason yet is willing to do so out of obedience to God. This act, whilst paradoxical, is not an act of ‘blind faith’ for Kierkegaard as it would be for Voltaire, as it rather demonstrates Abraham’s conscious, deeply personal commitment to God. Kierkegaard suggests that faith goes beyond reason, but that we should not blindly follow dogma, rather engage in a personal relationship with God.
‘Blind faith’ is an undeniably important phenomenon. Whether in the realm of current affairs, pseudoscience, critical thinking, or religious belief, it can clearly be a force for evil. Whilst we ought to give heed to Voltaire’s proposed remedy to this problem in one sense, as Kierkegaard himself would, and acknowledge that reason must govern testable claims, religion does not fit neatly into this framework as we might expect. Rather, it concerns existential questions that often operate outside the constraints of empirical evidence, but this does not mean that it is ‘blind,’ but that it is personal. In accepting this, one must acknowledge the merits of Kierkegaard’s conception of religious faith. To reject it on the grounds that it cannot be proved through reason both misunderstands what it means to have faith in God and dramatically overestimates the bounds of human reason. Religion is not immune from reasoned criticism, but we must acknowledge the distinction between empirical claims and existential ones.
By separating the empirical and existential spheres of inquiry, using reason only when applicable and seeing ‘authentic faith’ as a means to go beyond its limits, reason and religious faith can certainly co-exist in the modern age.
-Rafferty