Since the time of the Greek philosophers there has been a perception by some that it is possible to live a purely rational life: that emotion, faith and hope simply get in the way of rational decisions.
Given such a view, how can any body align religious faith and scientific commitment? How can a person hold without contradiction a deep and intrinsic respect for evidence and reason, and an equally deep respect for matters of belief?
It is my contention that such a polarised view of the way in which we conduct our personal and our social life is deeply flawed. It is not possible to reason things out and make decisions purely on a rational basis.
Firstly, we need faith and hope because we always have inadequate information for making any real decision. When we make important decisions like who to marry, whether to take a new job, or whether to move to a new place, we never have enough data to be certain of the outcome. Our choices in the end have to be concluded on the basis of partial information and are to a considerable degree based on faith and hope; faith about how things will be, hope that things will work out all right.
This is true even in science. When scientists set up research projects to look at string theory or particle physics, they do so in the belief that they will be able to obtain useful results.
Secondly, our emotions are a major factor in decision-making. As explained so well in Antonio Damasio’s book Descartes’ Error, no decisions are made purely on the basis of rational choice; the first factor affecting what we intend to do is the emotional tag attached to each experience, memory and future plan. For example, the hoped-for joy of successful achievement underlies most work in science; without it, science would not exist.
Thirdly, we need values to guide our rational decisions; ethics and aesthetics are crucial to deciding what kind of life we live.
Our minds act as an arbiter between three tendencies guiding our actions: first, what rationality suggests is the best course of action — the cold calculus of more and less, the economically most beneficial choice; second, what emotion sways us to do — the way that feels best, what we would like to do; and third, what our values tell us we ought to do — the ethically best option, the right thing to do. It is our responsibility to choose between them, making the best choice we can between these calls on the basis of our wisdom and integrity, and informed by the limited data available.
Values are not the same as emotions. What we feel like doing at some instant may or may not be ethically right, road rage being a classic example. Values cannot be arrived at purely rationally. They are decided on the basis of an interlocking set of factors that include emotions and rationality, but also a broad-based understanding of meaning based on our total life experience.
For many, a religious world view is often crucial in understanding our lives and establishing our values, this world view being based in our personal life experience, including our experience of a faith tradition and a community, our reading of religious texts, and our exposure to inspiring leaders. All of this helps us understand our situation and our lives. Something of this kind is essential to our well-being and proper fulfilment, because ethics and meaning are deeply intertwined. For many of us, the self-giving vision embodied in the life of Christ provides an inspiring basis for deep ethics, based on love, that is generous and sacrificial in nature. It can provide a meaningful vision of the nature of reality.
We will never be able to prove the nature of ultimate reality. Belief will always complement our rational understanding in order to provide a holistic view of existence and our nature. But to see their full implications, you have to be open to the possible existence of deeper layers of reality than just material reality: a Platonic world of mathematics, for example. When you are willing to be sensitive to hints of transcendence embedded in everyday physical existence and experience, an underlying meaning embodied in the foundations of physical reality, science and religion can complement each other profoundly.
George Ellis is the emeritus professor of mathematics, University of Cape Town