INTERNATIONAL PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE

ON FAITH AND REASON

TRIVANDRUM CARMEL HILL

JANUARY 7-10, 2010.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS BY D. BABU PAUL.

Let me begin by thanking Dr. Rockos Kolenchery for inviting me to inaugurate this conference of internationally known philosophers and our own students and teachers of Philosophy. Every child is a philosopher of sorts, as Willard van Orman Quine, said: any four-year old would ask ‘What is there?’, which is Ontology, ‘How do you know?’, which is Epistemology and ‘Why should I?’, which is Ethics. It is only on this definition that I would qualify to be in your midst. I read Civil Engineering for my basic degree, International Relations and Strategic Studies for my Master’s and Theology, Bible and Malayalam Literature for later research. I therefore wonder whether Dr. Rockos invited me to this august assembly to serve as a scarecrow to ward off evil spirits from descending on the brilliant philosophers present here.

You must have noticed that Faith and Reason are juxtaposed irrationally in this analogy of the scare crow. It is a faith that contradicts reason. Reason need not, however, always contradict faith. Nor does faith demand that it be supported by reason in every context. To my mind it occurs now during these days of Nativity and Epiphany that in the events that Christians commemorate at this time of the year there is a healthy combination of Faith and Reason. I wish to submit that thesis as a basic frame within which it should be possible for scholars like you to conceptualise this complimentarity of Faith and Reason.

Faith is the result of a voluntary act of will. It arises from the conviction of the truth of some doctrine. Whether this act is meritorious depends on whether one is a fideist, one who believes in the same doctrine. For such persons it would be a sin not to believe but for those who hold reason as an equally significant gift from God it would be sin to ride roughshod over reason if faith demands suspension of judgment.

We all seek truth. We all desire knowledge. There are two methods to acquire knowledge or derive the truth. One is the road of faith. Here you trust God and His revelation. The other is the road of reason where we evaluate various truth claims. Some truths however are known only by faith. Trinity, Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Divinity of Christ (not the Historicity; that belongs to another sphere of knowledge) and the like beliefs in various religions belong to this category. In my VEDASABDARATNAKARAM (Trivandrum 1997) I have concluded the essay on Trinity by using the final escape route of faith! While Immaculate Conception, again, is a matter of total faith-and faith only- Virgin Birth can be supported as a feasible phenomenon justified by faith. (I shall come to this later when I come to the thesis mentioned earlier). Some truths on the other hand are known only by reason. Science generally belongs here. We may perhaps generalise by saying that what can be measured can be supported by the measurement but what cannot be measured has to be accepted on faith. That I weigh a hundred kilograms can be proved scientifically but that I experience Divine Presence or proximity of the Holy Virgin when I sit down in my prayer room has to be trusted on my word.

Traditional Christian view does not hold faith and reason as mutually exclusive. It is just another of those secular myths that Christianity and its anti-intellectual dogmatism suppressed the scientific spirit. Actually Christianity preserved learning. Monasteries safeguarded and protected knowledge. Even Galileo’s case should not really be raised against the Church, but that is a totally different matter in this context. True, Martin Luther did say somewhere that reason is undependable and Calvinists did proscribe painkillers for women in labour but these do not define the Church’s view on the basic question. There may be fundamentalists who claim that the Paraclete would teach Physics and Geology but no serious and modern Theologian would concur.

Any process of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises may be called reasoning. It is a dynamic process. When we reason we make use of a common sense set of presumptions about what is likely or not. Leaving out the problems of reasoning vis-à-vis artificial intelligence and the world of computers we must notice that a reader brings to a text cultural, historical or textual knowledge. When a writer says that the hero entered a restaurant and sat down we understand that he sat down on a chair with a table in front and not, unless specifically stated, a chair that faces a blind wall.

This leads one to the next question. When one acts for a reason does the reason become the cause? We know that there are different views on this. Personally I am inclined to accept the position that the existence of reason is a mental event and unless it is causally linked to the act we cannot say that it is the reason for which the act is performed.

Now I shall come to my thesis that the Nativity Stories recorded by Matthew and Luke provide a good easy-to-understand way to see the complimentarity of faith and reason.

The first Gospel and the last do not refer to Nativity at all. May be it was not significant for Mark, and Peter whose scribe he probably was. Nor for John because by then the faith had moved on in depth and density. There used to be similar stories about kings and Roman emperors and perhaps Matthew wanted to establish that Jesus was the fructification of prophecy and Luke wanted to prove to the gentile world that this angle was not missing in respect of the King of the Kingdom of God. Whatever that be scholars are agreed that there is no later addition even in these Gospels; the earliest manuscripts have what we see in translation now.

What are the events recorded? 1. Mary conceived before consummation of the betrothed marriage. 2. Joseph was given a divine explanation of the event. 3. The Magi came. 4. Joseph fled to Egypt. 5. On return Joseph relocated to Nazareth. 6. According to Luke there was a Census which prompted Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. 7. Shepherds were informed by the angels; the angels sang in a way the shepherds could recognise.

Of these seven episodes Faith alone can make us believe the last. The rest have the support of possibilities unveiled by our knowledge of the times and the people involved.

First the first. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. The custom was that once betrothed the girl moved into the household of the groom. There was a ‘familiarisation-period’ of one month prescribed for remarriage of a widow and one year in the case of a virgin. During this period they had all the privileges of man and wife except for conjugal relations. Yet conjugal relations did take place often, human nature being what it is, and the Law accepted that child as legitimate. Here Joseph had committed no breach. And the betrothed woman was with child. Therefore he feared unfaithfulness. And he was assured by God about a transcendental event. Thus the background of Joseph’s vision stands to reason. However the vision itself is a matter of faith. Even conceding that the vision is incredible, that Joseph believed Mary’s word has to pass the test of reason. And with the kind of genealogy given by Matthew there is no reason to suspect that if Mary had had a relationship it would have been concealed: after all another “vision” could have covered up! Also the character of Mary implies nowhere that she would tell a lie. And except Mary there was no source for this story of Virgin Birth. Therefore while Virgin Birth is a supernatural event the circumstances would not make such an event undependable as a fact of faith..

The Magi now. We know the following facts: Magi did exist, they were multidisciplinary scholars, Jews lived in Persia, astronomical observations were recorded those days. As scholars Magi would know what Sutonius and Tacitus have recorded about the widespread expectation of a King from Judah becoming emperor of the world around the time. As contemporaries of the Diasporic Jews Magi would know that Jews expected a saviour and waited for a Star of Jacob. As astronomers Magi would see the celestial phenomena or know about that. And there were various sights to see those days in the sky. While we do not know the exact year the possibilities begin with Halley’s Comet! Possibly what the Magi noticed was the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces, which occurred in 7 BCE,a rare event that occurs every 794 (or 976?) years or so. According to astrology known to Persians Saturn meant Palestine, Jupiter meant Global Reign and Pisces meant end times. In addition was the rise of the Dog Star heliacally on the first of the Egyptian month of Mesori (= Prince) during those three years. It follows that it was possible for the Magi to guess the event and set out. Whether they were guided by the star or by some form of a compass is a matter of faith, or even conjecture. Faith in the nativity Story is supported by the reasonableness of the event described.

History tells us about the character of Herod. As soon as his throne became stable he annihilated the existing Sanhedrin. Then three hundred court officers. Later he killed his wife Mariamne, her mother Alexandra, and three of his sons, Antipater, Aristobulus and Alexander. The Emperor, his teenage friend quipped that it was safer to be born a pig in Herod’s palace than as the King’s son! The most distant threat was most ruthlessly aborted by this cruel despot. Therefore his response is also supported by reason. However whether Joseph was guided by a vision is a matter of faith, again. At the same time the destination- Egypt- makes it a credible flight to safety. That there was considerable Jewish population there during the first century before Common Era is well-documented. So if Joseph had to flee Herod Egypt was a natural destination.

Return of Joseph is again a feasible event. Whether he heard about Herod’s death by grapevine or knew through a vision is matter for conjecture again, and the latter certainly is a matter of faith. That Herod’s death would be known in the Jewish Diaspora stands to reason. We also know from secular history that Archaelaus was worse than his father and could not be tolerated even by Romans who managed Herod “the Great” with jokes! Therefore it is possible that Joseph returned, and that Joseph relocated himself.

The journey to Bethlehem. That it was customary in the days of the Roman Empire to ask subjects to return to their tribal homelands to register for census is documented in secular history. True there is a chronological problem and all that, but that is not significant for my thesis. Nor is it important that Mary did not by law have to accompany the husband.

Now to my thesis. Out of the seven major events mentioned all except Divine interventions or angelic manifestations were not impossible. They stand to reason. Therefore in the course of normal human experience the rest can be believed.

I am reminded of my Personality Test for the IAS examination. For the benefit of the visiting scholars I may say that Indian Administrative Service is the highest level of civil service (the Indian Foreign Service is of the same level).It is a year-long multi tier examination which attracts about half a million bright young men every year. Finally only about a hundred land up in the IAS, and about 20 in the IFS. So I went for this test, the final stage, way back in 1963/64 when I was a Lecturer in Civil Engineering here in Kerala. The Board of the Union Public Service Commission consisted of permanent members and specially invited experts. Those days it was all ICS and IP men and Vice Chancellors. The interview goes on as an intelligent chat and finally the Chairman, B N Jha ICS, then Chairman of the UPSC asked me about the Fall of Jericho. “The Bible says that Prophet Joshua ordered for the trumpet to be called, and down came the walls of Jericho. You are a believer, and a civil engineer. Is this possible?” My response was that I may be allowed to answer in two parts. And I said, “God’s actions need no explanation by man. It is a question of faith and not reason. However it is possible that if the frequency of the trumpet call synchronised with the natural frequency of the material that had gone into the construction the wall would fall when the trumpet call was made. That is why army marches helter-skelter on bridges”. I do not know whether it helped me as a sort of last nail or straw to be selected with Seventh Rank among the hundreds of thousands who competed with me, but that explains my stand on Faith and Reason.

You are all philosophers. You can have your own explanations. I am a layman, a humble engineer. For me if my faith is authenticated by my reason I am happy but as a believer it does not really matter. Where my Faith is in conflict with my Reason I stand by my faith.

I wish you fruitful deliberations on the high peaks of philosophy that you have identified in your busy schedule over the next three days. I resist a severe temptation to comment on some of those areas because I know what you would call me if I were to rush in where angels would fear, and even you should be cautious, to tread!

I declare this International Philosophy Conference open.