Oxford University Press

Mind has enjoyed a long tradition of success for over 100 years, publishing the leading edge in
epistemology, metaphysics, phenomenology and philosophy of mind. In this issue we revisit a few
rejected submissions.

The first in our line up has become quite a favorite amongst the editors. While an otherwise
exceptional opinionative letter – you’ll soon see why it was rejected.

FAITH VS REASON. THE FALSE DILEMA

Faith is ridiculous, impossible and simply does not exist! It us a false

experience - no one experiences faith. There is only rationality,
albeit fallible, which may lead an individual into the fervent belief in
the unconventional. That is faith, since not even the insane believe in
that which seems insubstantial to them. There is always something, a
religious experience, confidence in a holy book, the word of you
parents…the faithful have merely been misguided in comprehending
how they have applied their rationality to their beliefs. Their
rationality, to faith.

The faculties of perception are restricted by biological limits.

Assuming that there is an external objective reality, we only can
‘sense’ this partially because our eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin
can only tell what’s there to the best of their ability. If a person has
been blind their whole life they will not be able to comprehend that
there might be a world more than their own four senses perceive in
their immediate time and space. In contrast, a person with full eye
sight will be able to tell that there is a much fuller world to be
perceived. Similarly, there are an infinite number of elements of
perception which are inaccessible to humans. Reality is certainly far
more complicated than we can even perceive, let alone make sense
of. We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. We see
things as much as we are able to perceive them.

At another level, what we do perceive may very well be raw illusion.

We are not simply confined in perception by incomplete sensory
information, but also by the potential for that sensory information
may be illusionary. While it may be considered that intangible
concepts such as an false belief about something is a ‘something’
and thus constitutes reality, it is more useful to consider that this is
merely an illusion – an impression of reality which very well may
implicate that illusion into as a sort of part reality. The parable of the
"blind men and an elephant" may help to explain this. In this story,
each blind man felt a different part of an elephant (trunk, leg, ear,
etc.). All the men claimed to understand and explain the true
appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed, due to
their limited perspectives. In this way, they perceive may both be
considered reality or illusionary. For the purposes of this essay such
a will be considered an illusionary fragment of reality. We may also
consider the allegory of Plato’s cave, an analogy used in the
Republic to discuss the validity of the reality we perceive. The Greek
philosopher imagines a group of people who have lived chained in a
cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch
shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire
behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows.
According to Plato, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to
seeing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a
prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the
shadows on the wall are not constitutive of reality at all, as he can
perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen
by the prisoners. Similarly, we may see something and believe it to
be what is, when really, it is just a shadow of its true self. We do not
see things as they are, we see things as we are. We see things as well
as we are able perceive them. Faith is derived from perception.

The way we make sense of our perception is governed by our

prejudices and the meaning we illicit from this raw data. Assuming
that a being’s perception of reality is perfect, they must still contend
with the limits of mortal insight. The weaknesses in the rational of
mortal humans is often brought to light and highlighted when the
powers of an individual’s objective rational and logical deduction are
compared. In the fictional adventures of Sir Arthur Connell Doyle’s
famous detective Sherlock Holmes, the brilliance of the protagonist
reflects is unequal to those he shares his ‘perceptional’ data with
prior to forming a conclusion. Whilst he may be able to conclude a
case based on the evidence presented to him, another person cannot.
Since the abilities of the mind are perfectly relative and multi-
faceted and as long as there is conflict of any sort (assuming again an
objective, singularly perspected and deterministic reality) it may not
be said that humanity has reached the truth on any afore ascribed
issue. Faith is the misinterpretation of belief.

Ungovernable feelings, emotions and memories predicate how we

interpret sensor information. Although this subjectivity may skew
the accuracy of our interpretations, it is vitally important our
humanity. We can use such subjectivity to make assumptions and to
predict and extrapolate trends for which we have incomplete detail.
This distinguishes us from machines. We are more adaptable at the
cost of inaccuracy. If you were to be told that a former murderous
criminal was to service your car at a repair shop, you might feel a
negative bias towards him. By implicating his criminal nature into
your judgment, you might believe that he will do a poor job in fixing
your car; Although mechanical skill and criminality have no direct
bearing on one another, a chain of assumptions means that you may
make a subjective decision. This self determined illusion is
inseparable from our human nature. We do not see things as they are,
we see things as we are. We see things as accurately we are able to
negate out subjectivity in relation to them. Faith is the
mismanagement of belief.

Shared realities that are both perceived and understood in the same
way may yet be communicated differently. This may be overlooked
as it may be assumed to be a limit detached by the assumption of
perfect perception and insight. However, differences in
communication are established due to physical rather than mental
impairments and personal idiosyncrasies. Another related problem
also lies in the dependency of the recipient of the information to
follow through the process of perfect perception and insight
themselves. Imagine the eloquent Barrack Obama making the very
same speech as Jesse Jackson . Even if they apply the very same
perception and insight into the same task as one another and follow
through with a speech of the same content, a powerful distinction
will emerge. Jesse Jackson’s has the physical impairment of a cleft
lip and palate which affects the clarity of his speech. He may not be
able to communicate reality as well as Obama. These limitations in
communications are relevant at higher levels of understanding as
well. The capacity for an entity to comprehend reality as it is, is
restricted due to the tie between communication and perception. If a
sentient plant is aware of physics behind quantum mechanics,
whatever knowledge that plant has is presumable inaccessible to all
other forms of life who cannot harvest that knowledge. If reality by
its components, then it is beyond even ideal perception as the
information is not being transmitted to be received. Faith is the
communication of rationality which may appear insubstantial to
either party.

There is no ROOM for faith. Where does it arise? Do you see it? I
don’t see it. I don’t experience it. Priests, bishops, religious men are
all charlatans or poorly understand their supernatural conclusions.
No, I myself may be a thorough atheist, but I’m not suggesting that
their beliefs are invalid, not at all, only dispelling the myth of faith.
Perhaps it’s only an issue in language, and this issue should not have
been touched on at all. Perhaps it’s a lapse in human understanding
of ourself.

In the end, faith is only a byword - for misunderstood rationality.

By Reed Iculous,